Left Atrial Structural and Mechanical Remodelling in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), an association between left atrial (LA) dilatation and dysfunction is expected, but the degree of coexistence of the two abnormalities and their relative prognostic role is not known. Methods and results A total of 626 HFrEF patients formed the study population. All of them underwent a comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation. LA maximal volume was indexed to body surface area (LAVi); LA function was assessed using strain analysis during the reservoir phase: peak atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) analysis. Study primary endpoint was overall mortality or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Four groups of patients were included in this study according to LAVi (≤34 or >34 mL/m2) and PALS (≤23% or >23%); 61 (10%) patients had normal LA volume and function (Group 1), 58 (9%) had LA dilatation but normal function (Group 2), 100 (16%) had normal volume but abnormal function (Group 3), and 407 (65%) had enlarged left atrium and abnormal function (Group 4). PALS was associated with primary endpoint in patients with both normal-size [Groups 1 and 3: hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–0.96; P = 0.0006] and dilated left atria (Groups 2 and 4: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91–0.96; P < 0.0001). In contrast, LAVi was associated with the primary endpoint in patients with abnormal LA function (Groups 3 and 4: HR 1.018, 95% CI 1.011–1.024; P < 0.00001) but not in those with normal PALS (Groups 1 and 2: HR 1.023, 95% CI 0.99–1.057; P = 0.1). Conclusions Left atrial dilatation and dysfunction frequently but not invariably coexist. PALS emerged as a significant prognostic parameter in HFrEF even in the absence of LA dilation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".