Autonomic Responses During Acute Anterior Versus Inferior Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomic responses elicited by myocardial infarction vary depending on the site of injury, but accurate assessment using heart rate variability during the acute phase is limited. We systematically searched PubMed without language restrictions throughout July 2023. We reviewed studies reporting autonomic indices separately for anterior and inferior infarcts, followed by a meta-analysis of those reporting the standard deviation of the inter-beat interval between normal sinus beats during the initial 24 hours after the onset of symptoms. Six studies were included, comprising 341 patients (165 anterior, 176 inferior infarcts), all with satisfactory scores on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. The estimated average of the standardized mean difference (based on the random-effects model) was -0.722 (95% confidence intervals: -0.943 to -0.501), which differed from zero (z=-6.416, p<0.0001). This finding indicates sympathetic and vagal dominance during acute anterior and inferior infarcts, respectively, with excessive responses likely contributing to early arrhythmogenesis. Despite the amelioration of autonomic dysfunction by revascularization, infarct location should be considered when commencing β-adrenergic receptor blockade, especially after delayed procedures.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".