Relationship of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy to mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in high-risk patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognostic significance of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) identified by simple electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria in high-risk patients with established cardiovascular (CV) diseases is not clearly understood.The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial was a randomized trial, which evaluated the effects of ramipril and of vitamin E on major CV outcomes in 9541 men and women aged 55 years or older with a history of coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease or diabetes mellitus with at least one additional CV risk factor. Patients were followed for an average of 4.5 years. We evaluated the association between simple ECG criteria for LVH and the risk for major vascular events, for CV and all-cause mortality and for heart failure.Electrocardiographic LVH was present in 793 (8.3%) HOPE study participants. Of these, 19.0% sustained a major CV event (MI, stroke or CV death), 15.6% died and 6.1% developed heart failure compared with 15.6%, 10.8% and 2.9% respectively of those without ECG-LVH (P = 0.0023; P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis ECG-LVH was an independent predictor of CV and all-cause death and of heart failure.In patients with CV disease simple, easily applicable ECG criteria for LVH identify a subset of individuals at particularly high risk for death and for heart failure.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".