Left Ventricular Fibrosis in Middle-Age Athletes and Physically Active Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and T1 mapping techniques enable the quantification of focal and diffuse myocardial LGE, respectively. Studies have shown evidence of fibrosis in middle-age athletes, but not relative to physically active (PA) adults who perform recommended physical activity levels. Therefore, we examined cardiac remodeling and presence of left ventricular (LV) LGE and T1 values in both recreational middle-age endurance athletes (EA) and PA adults. METHODS: Healthy EA and PA adults (45-65 yr) completed a standardized 3-T CMR protocol with ventricular volumetry, LV LGE, and T1 mapping. RESULTS: Seventy-two EA and 20 PA participants (mean age, 53 ± 5 vs 56 ± 4 yr; P < 0.01; V˙O2peak = 50 ± 7 vs 37 ± 9 mL·kg·min, P < 0.0001) were examined, with CMR data available in 89/92 participants. Focal LV LGE was observed in 30% of participants (n = 27/89): 33% of EA (n = 23/69; 33%) and 20% of PA (n = 4/20; 20%). LGE was present at the right ventricular hinge point (n = 21/89; 23.5%) or identified as ischemic (n = 2/89; 2%) or nonischemic (n = 4/89; 4%). Focal LV LGE was observed similarly in both EA and PA (P = 0.25). EA had larger LV chamber sizes and T1 native values (1169 ± 35 vs 1190 ± 26, P = 0.02) compared with PA, with similar LV ejection fraction. Global extracellular volume (ECV) was similar in both EA and PA (22.6% ± 3.5% vs 21.5% ± 2.6%, P = 0.26), with no relationship between global ECV and LV mass (r = -0.16, P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Focal LGE at the right ventricular hinge point was detected at the same frequency in both groups, was unrelated to demographic or clinical indices, and was found without evidence of global ECV expansion in EA, suggesting a physiologic remodeling response. The long-term clinical implications of hinge-point LGE require clarification using prospective, long-term follow-up studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".