Cardiac Remodeling in Elite Aquatic Sport Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare the sport-specific cardiac structure of elite swimmers (SW), water polo players (WP), and artistic swimmers (AS). DESIGN: A cross-sectional assessment of elite aquatic athletes' hearts. SETTING: The athletes' village at the 2019 FINA World Championships. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety athletes from swimming (SW) (20 M/17 F), water polo (WP) (21 M/9 F), and artistic swimming (AS) (23 F). ASSESSMENT AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: An echocardiographic assessment of cardiac structure was performed on noncompetition days. RESULTS: Male SW displayed primarily eccentric volume-driven remodeling, whereas male WP had a greater incidence of pressure-driven concentric geometry (SW = 5%, WP = 25%) with elevated relative wall-thickness (RWT) (SW = 0.35 ± 0.04, WP = 0.44 ± 0.08, P < 0.001). Female SW and WP hearts were similar with primarily eccentric-remodeling, but SW and WP had greater concentricity index than artistic swimmers (SW = 6.74 ± 1.45 g/(mL)2/3, WP = 6.80 ± 1.24 g/(mL)2/3, AS = 5.52 ± 1.08 g/(mL)2/3, P = 0.007). AS had normal geometry, but with increased posterior-wall specific RWT (SW = 0.32 ± 0.05, AS = 0.42 ± 0.11, P = 0.004) and greater left atrial area than SW (SW = 9.7 ± 0.9 cm2/m2, AS = 11.0 ± 1.1 cm2/m2, P = 0.003). All females had greater incidence of left ventricular (LV) posterior/septal wall-thickness ≥11 mm than typically reported (SW = 24%, WP = 11%, AS = 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Male athletes presented classic sport-specific differentiation, with SW demonstrating primarily volume-driven eccentric remodelling, and WP with greater concentric geometry indicative of pressure-driven remodeling. Female SW and WP did not display this divergence, likely because of sex-differences in adaptation. AS had unique LV-specific adaptations suggesting elevated pressure under low-volume conditions. The overall incidence of elevated wall-thickness in female athletes may point to an aquatic specific pressure-stress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".