Heart size disparity drives sex-specific response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a post-hoc analysis of the MORE-MPP CRT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies have reported that female sex predicts superior cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. One theory is that this association is related to smaller female heart size, thus increased "relative dyssynchrony" at given QRS durations (QRSd). Objective: To investigate the mechanisms of sex-specific CRT response relating to heart size, relative dyssynchrony, cardiomyopathy type, QRS morphology, and other patient characteristics. Methods: A post-hoc analysis of the MORE-CRT MPP trial (n=3739, 28% female), with a sub-group analysis of patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) (n=1308, 41% female) to control for confounding characteristics. A multivariable analysis examined predictors of response to 6 months of conventional CRT, including sex and relative dyssynchrony, measured by QRSd/LVEDV (left ventricular end-diastolic volume). Results: Regression analysis of the NICM LBBB subgroup identified QRSd/LVEDV, but not sex, as a modifier of CRT response (p<0.0039). QRSd/LVEDV was significantly higher in females (0.919) versus males (0.708, p<0.001). CRT response was 78% for female patients with QRSd/LVEDV>median value, compared to 68% < median value (p=0.012). Association between CRT response and QRSd/LVEDV was strongest at QRSd<150ms. Conclusions: In the NICM LBBB population, increased relative dyssynchrony in females, who have smaller heart sizes than their male counterparts, is a driver of sex-specific CRT response, particularly at QRSd <150ms. Females may benefit from CRT at a QRSd <130ms, opening the debate on whether sex-specific QRSd cut-offs or QRS/LVEDV measurement should be incorporated into clinical guidelines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".