Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing With Echocardiography to Assess Recovery in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for select patients with end-stage heart failure. Some patients recovered and are considered for explantation. Assessing recovery involves exercise testing and echo ramping on full and minimal LVAD support. Combined cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echo ramping (CPET-R) has not been well studied. Patients were included if they had CPET within the previous 6 months, were clinically stable, and had an INR >2.0 on the day of examination. Patients had CPET-R on two occasions within 14 days: (a) with LVAD at therapeutic speed and (b) with LVAD at the lowest speed possible. Six patients were between 29 and 75 years (two female). One patient did not complete a turn-down test due to evidence of ischemia on initial CPET-R subsequently confirmed as a significant coronary artery stenosis on angiography. There were no significant differences in CPET or echo metrics between LVAD speeds. Two patients were explanted due to presumed LV recovery and remained event free for 30 and 47 months, respectively. Serial CPET-R seems safe and feasible for the evaluation of LV and global function and may result in improved clinical decision making for LVAD explantation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".