MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310558456 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.2749

Normal and Excessive Muscle Sympathetic Nerve Activity in Heart Failure: Implications for Future Trials of Therapeutic Autonomic Modulation

2022· article· en· W4310558456 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark B. Badrov, Daniel A. Keir, George Tomlinson, Catherine F. Notarius, Philip J. Millar, Derek S. Kimmerly, J. Kevin Shoemaker, Evan Keys, John S. Floras

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityUniversity of GuelphWestern UniversitySinai Health SystemDalhousie UniversityToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionInternal medicineCardiologyHeart rateStroke volumeBlood pressureBody mass indexIvabradineAutonomic nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Patients with sympathetic excess are those most likely to benefit from novel interventions targeting the autonomic nervous system. To inform such personalized therapy, we identified determinants of augmented muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) in heart failure, versus healthy controls. Methods and results We compared data acquired in 177 conventionally-treated, stable non-diabetic patients in sinus rhythm, aged 18–79 years (149 males; 28 females; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 25 ± 11% [mean ± standard deviation]; range 5–60%), and, concurrently, under similar conditions, in 658 healthy, normotensive volunteers (398 males; aged 18–81 years). In heart failure, MSNA ranged between 7 and 90 bursts·min−1, proportionate to heart rate (p < 0.0001) and body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.03), but was unrelated to age, blood pressure, or drug therapy. Mean MSNA, adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and heart rate, was greater in heart failure (+14.2 bursts·min−1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.1–16.3; p < 0.0001), but lower in women (−5.0 bursts·min−1; 95% CI 3.4–6.6; p < 0.0001). With spline modeling, LVEF accounted for 9.8% of MSNA variance; MSNA related inversely to LVEF below an inflection point of ∼21% (p < 0.006), but not above. Burst incidence was greater in ischaemic than dilated cardiomyopathy (p = 0.01), and patients with sleep apnoea (p = 0.03). Burst frequency correlated inversely with stroke volume (p < 0.001), cardiac output (p < 0.001), and peak oxygen consumption (p = 0.002), and directly with norepinephrine (p < 0.0001) and peripheral resistance (p < 0.001). Conclusion Burst frequency and incidence exceeded normative values in only ∼53% and ∼33% of patients. Such diversity encourages selective deployment of sympatho-modulatory therapies. Clinical characteristics can highlight individuals who may benefit from future personalized interventions targeting pathological sympathetic activation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207