Normative Values of Echocardiographic Chamber Size and Function in Older Healthy Adults: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Echocardiographic (2DE) thresholds indicating disease or impaired functional status compared to normal physiologic aging in individuals ≥ 65 years are not clearly defined. In the present study, we sought to establish standard values for 2DE parameters related to chamber size and function in older adults without cardiopulmonary or cardiometabolic conditions. Methods: In this cross-sectional study of 3032 individuals who underwent 2DE at Exam 6 in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), 608 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with normative values defined as the mean value ± 1.96 standard deviations and compared across sex and race/ethnicity. Functional status measures included NT-proBNP, 6-minute walk distance [6MWD], and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ]. Prognostic performance using MESA cutoffs was compared to established guideline cutoffs using time-to-event analysis. Results: Participants meeting our inclusion criteria (69.5 ± 7.0 years, 46.2% male, 47.5% White) had lower NT-proBNP, higher 6MWD, and higher (better) KCCQ summary values. Women had significantly smaller chamber sizes and better biventricular systolic function. White participants had the largest chamber dimensions, while Chinese participants had the smallest, even after adjustment for body size. Current guidelines identified 81.6% of healthy older adults in MESA as having cardiac abnormalities. Conclusions: Among a large, diverse group of healthy older adults, we found significant differences in cardiac structure and function across sexes and races/ethnicities, which may signal sex-specific cardiac remodeling with advancing age. It is crucial for existing guidelines to consider the observed and clinically significant differences in cardiac structure and function associated with healthy aging. Our study highlights that existing guidelines, which grade abnormalities in echocardiographic cardiac chamber size and function based on younger individuals, may not adequately address the anticipated changes associated with normal aging.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".