Canadian Cardiovascular Society Clinical Practice Update on Contemporary Management of the Patient With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous guidelines on the diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) have been published, by learned societies, over the past decade. Although helpful they are often long and less adapted to nonexperts. This writing panel was challenged to produce a document that grew as much from years of practical experience as it did from the peer-reviewed literature. As such, rather than produce yet another set of guidelines, we aim herein to deliver a concentrate of our own experiential learning and distill for the reader the essence of effective and appropriate HCM care. This Clinical Practice Update on HCM is therefore aimed at general cardiologists and other cardiovascular practitioners rather than for HCM specialists. We set the stage with a description of the condition and its clinical presentation, discuss the central importance of "obstruction" and how to look for it, review the role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, reflect on the appropriate use of genetic testing, review the treatment options for symptomatic HCM-crucially including cardiac myosin inhibitors, and deal concisely with practical issues surrounding risk assessment for sudden cardiac death, and management of the end-stage HCM patient. Uniquely, we have captured the pediatric experience on our panel to discuss appropriate differences in the management of younger patients with HCM. We ask the reader to remember that this document represents expert consensus opinion rather than dogma and to use their best judgement when dealing with the HCM patient in front of them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".