Cardiovascular multimodality imaging in women: a scientific statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging of the European Society of Cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) represent an important cause of mortality and morbidity in women. It is now recognized that there are sex differences regarding the prevalence and the clinical significance of the traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors as well as the pathology underlying a range of CVDs. Unfortunately, women have been under-represented in most CVD imaging studies and trials regarding diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutics. There is therefore a clear need for further investigation of how CVD affects women along their life span. Multimodality CV imaging plays a key role in the diagnosis of CVD in women as well as in prognosis, decision-making, and monitoring of therapeutics and interventions. However, multimodality imaging in women requires specific consideration given the differences in CVD between the sexes. These differences relate to physiological changes that only women experience (e.g. pregnancy and menopause) as well as variation in the underlying pathophysiology of CVD and also differences in the prevalence of certain conditions such as connective tissue disorders, Takotsubo, and spontaneous coronary artery dissection, which are all more common in women. This scientific statement on CV multimodality in women, an initiative of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging of the European Society of Cardiology, reviews the role of multimodality CV imaging in the diagnosis, management, and risk stratification of CVD, as well as highlights important gaps in our knowledge that require further investigation.
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 | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".