Left Ventricular Flow Distribution as a Novel Flow Biomarker in Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Four-dimensional (4-D) flow cardiac magnetic resonance imaging can be used to elegantly describe the hemodynamic efficiency of left ventricular (LV) flow throughout the cardiac cycle. Patients with nonvalvular paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) may have occult LV disease. Flow distribution analysis, based on 4-D flow, may unmask the presence of LV disease by assessing flow components: direct flow, retained flow, delayed ejection, and residual volume. This study aimed to identify LV hemodynamic inefficiencies in patients with PAF and normal systolic function. We hypothesized that the fraction of direct flow to the total end-diastolic volume would be reduced in patients with PAF compared with controls. Methods: We used 4-D LV flow component analysis to compare hemodynamics in 30 healthy controls and 50 PAF patients in sinus rhythm. Results: PAF subjects and healthy controls had similar LV mass, volume, and ejection fraction. Direct flow was lower in the PAF group than in the controls (44.5 ± 11.2% vs. 50.0 ± 12.2%, p = 0.042) while delayed ejection was higher in the PAF group (21.6 ± 5.6% vs. 18.6 ± 5.7%, p = 0.022). Conclusion: PAF patients demonstrated a relative reduction in direct flow and elevation in delayed ejection.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".