Myocardial Blood Flow Quantified Using Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance After Mild COVID-19 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe COVID-19 infection is known to alter myocardial perfusion through its effects on the endothelium and microvasculature. However, the majority of patients with COVID-19 infection experience only mild symptoms, and it is unknown if their myocardial perfusion is altered after infection. The authors aimed to determine if there are abnormalities in myocardial blood flow (MBF), as measured by stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), in individuals after a mild COVID-19 infection. We conducted a prospective, comparative study of individuals who had a prior mild COVID-19 infection (n = 30) and matched controls (n = 26) using stress CMR. Stress and rest myocardial blood flow (sMBF, rMBF) were quantified using the dual sequence technique. Myocardial perfusion reserve was calculated as sMBF/rMBF. Unpaired t-tests were used to test differences between the groups. The median time interval between COVID-19 infection and CMR was 5.6 (IQR: 4-8) months. No patients with the COVID-19 infection required hospitalization. Symptoms including chest pain, shortness of breath, syncope, and palpitations were more commonly present in the group with prior COVID-19 infection than in the control group (57% vs 7%, P < 0.001). No significant differences in rMBF (1.08 ± 0.27 mL/g/min vs 0.97 ± 0.29 mL/g/min, P = 0.16), sMBF (3.08 ± 0.79 mL/g/min vs 3.06 ± 0.89 mL/g/min, P = 0.91), or myocardial perfusion reserve (2.95 ± 0.90 vs 3.39 ± 1.25, P = 0.13) were observed between the groups. This study suggests that there are no significant abnormalities in rest or stress myocardial perfusion, and thus microvascular function, in individuals after mild COVID-19 infection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".