Exercise in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: restrict or rethink
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detailed physiological consequences of aerobic training, in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), are not well understood. In athletes and nonathletes with HCM, there are two hypothetical concerns with respect to exercise: exercise-related worsening of the phenotype (e.g., promoting hypertrophy and fibrosis) and/or triggering of arrhythmia. The former concern is unproven and animal studies suggest an opposite effect, where exercise has been shown to be protective. The main reason for exercise restriction in HCM is fear of exercise-induced arrhythmia. Although the safety of sports in HCM has been reviewed, even more recent data suggest a substantially lower risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) in HCM than previously thought, and there is an ongoing debate about restrictions of exercise imposed on individuals with HCM. This review outlines the pathophysiology of HCM, the impact of acute and chronic exercise (and variations of exercise intensity, modality, and athletic phenotype) in HCM including changes in autonomic function, blood pressure, cardiac dimensions and function, and cardiac output, and the underlying mechanisms that may trigger exercise-induced lethal arrhythmias. It provides a critical evaluation of the evidence regarding risk of SCD in athletes and the potential benefits of targeted exercise prescription in adults with HCM. Finally, it provides considerations for personalized recommendations for sports participation based on the available data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it