Left atrial structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Left atrial (LA) structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is only established in small studies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of LA structure and function in order to find differences between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. English literature on LA structure and function using echocardiography was reviewed to calculate pooled prevalence and weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 61 studies, comprising 8806 patients with HFrEF and 9928 patients with HFpEF, were included. The pooled prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was 34.4% versus 42.8% in the acute inpatient setting, and 20.1% versus 33.1% in the chronic outpatient setting when comparing between HFrEF and HFpEF. LA volume index (LAVi), LA reservoir global longitudinal strain (LAGLS R ), and E/e’ was 59.7 versus 52.7 ml/m 2 , 9.0% versus 18.9%, and 18.5 versus 14.0 in the acute inpatient setting, and 48.3 versus 38.2 ml/m 2 , 12.8% versus 23.4%, and 16.9 versus 13.5 in the chronic outpatient setting when comparing HFrEF versus HFpEF, respectively. The relationship between LAVi and LAGLS R was significant in HFpEF, but not in HFrEF. Also, in those studies that directly compared patients with HFrEF versus HFpEF, those with HFrEF had worse LAGLS R [WMD = 16.3% (22.05,8.61); p < 0.001], and higher E/e’ [WMD = −0.40 (−0.56, −0.24); p < 0.05], while LAVi was comparable. When focusing on acute hospitalized patients, E/e’ was comparable between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. Despite the higher burden of AF in HFpEF, patients with HFrEF had worse LA global function. Left atrial myopathy is not specifically related to HFpEF.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".