Sex-specific relationships between patterns of ventricular remodelling and clinical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is the most common form of myocardial remodelling and predicts adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, sex-specific prevalence and prognostic significance of LVH patterns are poorly understood. We investigated the sex-specific influence of LVH pattern on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and coronary angiography following adjustment for co-morbidities including CAD burden. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing CMR and coronary angiography between 2005 and 2013 were included. Volumetric measurements of left ventricular (LV) mass with classification of concentric vs. eccentric remodelling patterns were determined from CMR cine images. Multivariable Cox analysis was performed to assess independent associations with the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. In total, 3754 patients were studied (mean age 59.3 ± 13.1 years), including 1039 (27.7%) women. Women were more likely to have concentric remodelling (8.1% vs. 2.1%, P < 0.001), less likely to have eccentric hypertrophy (15.1% vs. 26.8%, P < 0.001) and had a similar prevalence of concentric hypertrophy (6.1 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.296) compared to men. At a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 315 (8.4%) patients died. Following adjustment including CAD burden, concentric hypertrophy was associated with increased all-cause mortality in women [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 3.48, P < 0.001] and men (adjusted HR 2.57, P < 0.001). Eccentric hypertrophy was associated with all-cause mortality only in women (adjusted HR 1.78, P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Patterns of LV remodelling differ by sex and LVH and provides prognostic information in both men and women. Our findings support the presence of sex-specific factors influencing LV remodelling.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".