Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Role of Multimodality Cardiac Imaging. A Scientific Statement of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy consists in an increased LV wall thickness. LV hypertrophy can be either secondary, in response to pressure or volume overload, or primary, i.e. not explained solely by abnormal loading conditions. Primary LV hypertrophy may be due to gene mutations or to the deposition or storage of abnormal substances in the extracellular spaces or within the cardiomyocytes (more appropriately defined as pseudohypertrophy). LV hypertrophy is often a precursor to subsequent development of heart failure. Cardiovascular imaging plays a key role in the assessment of LV hypertrophy. Echocardiography, the first-line imaging technique, allows a comprehensive assessment of LV systolic and diastolic function. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance provides added value as it measures accurately LV and right ventricular volumes and mass and characterizes myocardial tissue properties, which may provide important clues to the final diagnosis. Additionally, scintigraphy with bone tracers is included in the diagnostic algorithm of cardiac amyloidosis. Once the diagnosis is established, imaging findings may help predict future disease evolution and inform therapy and follow-up. This consensus document by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology provides an overview of the role of different cardiac imaging techniques for the differential diagnosis and management of patients with LV hypertrophy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".