Effects of endurance exercise training on left ventricular structure in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the impact of endurance training (ET) interventions on left ventricular (LV) chamber size, wall thickness, and mass in healthy adults. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane library, and EBM Reviews were searched up to 4 January 2022. Criteria for inclusion were healthy females and/or males (>18 years), ET intervention for ≥2 weeks, and studies reporting pre- and post-training LV structural parameters. A random-effects meta-analysis with heterogeneity, publication bias, and sensitivity analysis was used to determine the effects of ET on LV mass (LVM) and diastolic measures of interventricular septum thickness (IVSd), posterior wall thickness (PWTd), and LV diameter (LVDd). Meta-regression was performed on mediating factors (age, sex, training protocols) to assess their effects on LV structure. Eighty-two studies met inclusion criteria (n = 1908; 19-82 years, 33% female). There was a significant increase in LVM, PWTd, IVSd, and LVDd following ET [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.444, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.361, 0.527; P < 0.001; SMD = 0.234, 95% CI: 0.159, 0.309; P < 0.001; SMD = 0.237, 95% CI: 0.159, 0.316; P < 0.001; SMD = 0.249, 95% CI:0.173, 0.324; P < 0.001, respectively]. Trained status, training type, and age were the only mediating factors for change in LVM, where previously trained, mixed-type training, young (18-35 years), and middle-aged (36-55 years) individuals had the greatest change compared with untrained, interval-type training, and older individuals (>55 years). A significant increase in wall thickness was observed in males, with a similar augmentation of LVDd in males and females. Trained individuals elicited an increase in all LV structures and ET involving mixed-type training and rowing and swimming modalities conferred the greatest increase in PWTd and LVDd. CONCLUSION: Left ventricular structure is significantly increased following ET. Males, young and trained individuals, and ET interventions involving mixed training regimes elicit the greatest changes in LV structure.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 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".