553Prognostic value of non-ischemic ring-like left ventricular scar pattern in patients with apparently idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias: a CMR imaging study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The presence of left ventricular (LV) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) at cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been correlated to life-threatening arrhythmic events in patients with apparently idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). Objective: We investigated the prognostic significance of a specific LV-LGE phenotype characterized by a subepicardial/midmyocardial "ring-like" pattern of fibrosis. Methods: Out of a total of 518 consecutive patients with apparently idiopathic VAs who underwent CMR study, 79 (15%) had evidence of LV-LGE. Of these, 23 (4%) patients had LV LGE with ring-like pattern, defined as subepicardial or midmyocardial LGE involving at least 3 contiguous segments in the same slice (group A), and 56 (11%) patients had LV LGE with no ring-like pattern (group B). The remaining 439 patients had no LGE (group C). The end-point of the study was a composite SCD, resuscitated cardiac arrest and nonfatal episodes of ventricular fibrillation or documented sustained ventricular tachycardia. Results: Group A patients were more frequently males compared to groups B and C (96% vs. 79% vs. 52%; p < 0.01) and had more frequently a family history of SCD and/or cardiomyopathy (30% vs. 11% vs. 5%; p < 0.01). All patients in Group A showed VAs with a predominant RBBB morphology vs. 38 (68%) patients in Group B and 65 (15%) in Group C (p < 0.01). During a follow-up of 63 ± 39 months, the composite outcome occurred in 13 patients (57%) in Group A vs. 11 (20%) in Group B and 2 (1%) in Group C (p < 0.01). Conclusion: In patients with apparently idiopathic VAs, a nonischemic LV-LGE with a ring-like pattern at CMR is associated with a high rate of malignant arrhythmic events during follow-up. Abstract 553 Figure 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".