Assessments of right ventricular strain using cardiac m<scp>agnetic resonance imaging</scp> following kidney transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although kidney transplantation (KT) has been shown to ameliorate adverse left ventricular (LV) remodelling associated with end stage kidney disease, its effects on the right ventricle have not been well studied. Recently, strain imaging has been shown to be a sensitive measure of early subclinical myocardial dysfunction. Using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), we examined the effects of KT on right ventricular (RV) strain parameters. In a cohort of 81 patients (39 patients underwent KT and 42 patients remained on dialysis as control group), cardiac MRI studies were obtained at baseline and at 1 year follow-up. There were no significant differences in RV strain values between the groups at baseline. After 1 year, RV strain values did not significantly change in patients who received KT, and changes in RV strain over 1 year were not significantly different between the KT and the dialysis groups. Given the previously demonstrated improvement in LV strain post-KT, the current study suggests that RV and LV remodelling post-KT may have different mechanisms. Further studies elucidating the effects of KT on RV remodelling are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".