Review article: comprehensive analysis of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with cirrhosis are at risk of developing cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. This syndrome is unique to cirrhosis and is generally defined as subnormal cardiac function in the absence of prior heart disease. There is no systematic or comprehensive review of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy to date. AIMS: To comprehensively review the literature on the definition, pathogenic mechanisms, diagnostic criteria, prevalence, management and influence on liver transplantation including reversibility of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: Electronic searches of the EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBM Reviews-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar databases were conducted. MeSH terms focused on cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy, medication classes and epidemiology. Literature up to August 2020 was reviewed. RESULTS: New diagnostic criteria for the definition of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy have recently been published, consisting of systolic and diastolic dysfunction parameters as assessed by echocardiographic methods. The roles of electrocardiographic disturbances and biomarkers in the definition criteria remain unclear. Pathogenic mechanisms underlying cirrhotic cardiomyopathy are likely related to the inflammatory phenotype of cirrhosis. Prevalence rates of 26%-81% in cirrhotic patients are reported. Several medical therapies have been proposed, but none with clear evidence of efficacy. The presence of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy complicates the liver transplantation process with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events post-transplant. Complete reversibility of the syndrome after transplantation remains controversial but most studies suggest that it does not occur at least within the first post-operative year. CONCLUSIONS: Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy is a clinically relevant syndrome that affects morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".