Emerging Themes in Genetics of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Current Status and Clinical Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), defined clinically by the presence of unexplained left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), with wall thickness ≥ 1.5 cm, is a phenotype in search of a diagnosis, which is most often a genetically determined, cardiac exclusive, or systemic disorder. Familial evaluation and genetic testing are required for definitive diagnosis. The role of genetic findings in predicting development of disease, outcomes, and increasingly to guide management is evolving with access to larger data sets. The specific mutation and sex of the patient are important determinants that ultimately are likely to guide management. The genetic/familial evaluation is influenced by the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis and the extent/expertise of the genetic laboratory. Genetic testing in a patient with unexplained LVH without systemic manifestations will yield a definite/likely pathogenetic mutation in a sarcomere (30%-50%), regulatory/functional (10%-15%) or metabolic/syndromic (< 5%) gene associated with Mendelian inheritance. The importance of oligo- and polygenic determinants, usually in the absence of Mendelian inheritance, is under investigation with important implications, particularly related to familial evaluation and definition of risk of disease development in relatives of probands. The results of genetic testing are increasingly important in management strategies related to the use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator for prevention of sudden death, use of myosin inhibitors for refractory symptoms in patients with and without outflow tract obstruction, and-on the immediate horizon-gene therapy. This review will focus on genetic and outcome data in sarcomeric HCM, and minor causative genes with robust evidence of their association will also be considered.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".