MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Mitral Regurgitation and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Management

2024· article· en· W4393087527 on OpenAlexaff
Mauro Riccardi, Maja Čikeš, Marianna Adamo, Matteo Pagnesi, Carlo Lombardi, Scott D. Solomon, Marco Metra, Riccardo M. Inciardi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Failure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureMitral regurgitationHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionContext (archaeology)VentricleEjection fractionDiastoleFunctional mitral regurgitationRegurgitation (circulation)Blood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is highly prevalent and associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. The pathophysiology of HFpEF mostly relies on the development of elevated left ventricle filling pressure, diastolic dysfunction, and atrial dilatation and impairment. This dynamic process may eventually lead to the development of functional mitral regurgitation (MR), characterized by mitral annular dilatation and consequent leaflet remodeling, in the context of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. These observations highlight the possible common pathophysiology of MR and HFpEF. However, less is known about the prevalence and the clinical value of MR in the context of HFpEF. This review aims to provide an overview of the association and interplay between functional MR and HFpEF, discuss the underlying mechanisms that are common to these diseases, and summarize potential targeted pharmacological treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiac FailureSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207