Right ventricular global dysfunction score: a new concept of right ventricular function assessment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Right ventricular (RV) function is currently being evaluated solely according to the properties of RV myocardium. We have tested a concept that in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), RV assessment should integrate the information about both RV function as well as size. Methods A total of 836 stable patients with HFrEF (LVEF 23.6 ± 5.8%, 82.8% males, 68% NYHA III/IV) underwent echocardiographic evaluation and were prospectively followed for a median of 3.07 (IQRs 1.11; 4.89) years for the occurrence of death, urgent heart transplantation or implantation of mechanical circulatory support. Results RV size (measured as RV-basal diameter, RVD 1 ) was significantly associated with an adverse outcome independent of RV dysfunction grade ( p = 0.0002). The prognostic power of RVD 1 was further improved by indexing to body surface area (RVD 1 i, p < 0.05 compared to non-indexed value). A novel parameter named RV global dysfunction score (RVGDs) was calculated as a product of RVD 1 i and the degree of RV dysfunction (1–4 for preserved RV function, mild, moderate and severe dysfunction, respectively). RVGDs showed a superior prognostic role compared to RV dysfunction grade alone (ΔAUC >0.03, p < 0.0001). In every subgroup of RVGDs (<20, 20–40, 40–60, >60), patients with milder degree of RV dysfunction but more dilated RV had similar outcome as those with more severe degree of RV dysfunction but smaller RV size (all p > 0.50), independent of tricuspid regurgitation severity and degree of pulmonary hypertension. Conclusion RV dilatation is a manifestation of RV dysfunction. The evaluation of RV performance should integrate the information about both RV size and function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".