Increased long-term mortality in women with high left ventricular ejection fraction: data from the CONFIRM (COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter) long-term registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There are significant sex-specific differences in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), with a higher LVEF being observed in women. We sought to assess the clinical relevance of an increased LVEF in women and men. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 4632 patients from the CONFIRM (COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter) registry (44.8% women; mean age 58.7 ± 13.2 years in men and 59.5 ± 13.3 years in women, P = 0.05), in whom LVEF was measured by cardiac computed tomography, were categorized according to LVEF (low <55%, normal 55-65%, and high >65%). The prevalence of high LVEF was similar in both sexes (33.5% in women and 32.5% in men, P = 0.46). After 6 years of follow-up, no difference in mortality was observed in patients with high LVEF in the overall cohort (P = 0.41). When data were stratified by sex, women with high LVEF died more often from any cause as compared to women with normal LVEF (8.6% vs. 7.1%, log rank P = 0.032), while an opposite trend was observed in men (5.8% vs. 6.8% in normal LVEF, log rank P = 0.89). Accordingly, a first order interaction term of male sex and high LVEF was significant (hazard ratios 0.63, 95% confidence intervals 0.41-0.98, P = 0.043) in a Cox regression model of all-cause mortality adjusted for age, cardiovascular risk factors, and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). CONCLUSION: Increased LVEF is highly prevalent in patients referred for evaluation of CAD and is associated with an increased risk of death in women, but not in men. Differentiating between normal and hyperdynamic left ventricles might improve risk stratification in women with CAD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01443637.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".