The Added Value of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Muscular Dystrophies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscular dystrophies (MD) represent a heterogeneous group of rare genetic diseases that often lead to significant weakness due to progressive muscle degeneration. In many forms of MD, cardiac manifestations including heart failure, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias and conduction abnormalities can occur and may be a predominant feature of the disease. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can assess cardiac anatomy, global and regional ventricular function, volumes and mass as well as presence of myocardial inflammation, infiltration or fibrosis. The role for cardiac MRI has been well-established in a wide range of muscular dystrophies related cardiomyopathies. CMR is a more sensitive technique than echocardiography for early diagnosis of cardiac involvement. It has also great potential to improve the prediction of long-term outcome, particularly the development of heart failure and arrhythmic events; however it still has to be validated by longitudinal studies including large populations. This review will outline the utility of CMR in patients with muscular dystrophies for assessment of myocardial involvement, risk stratification, and in guiding therapeutic management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".