Diabetic Myocardial Disorder. A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC and the ESC Working Group on Myocardial & Pericardial Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF) has been firmly established; however, the entity of diabetic myocardial disorder (previously called diabetic cardiomyopathy) remains a matter of debate. Diabetic myocardial disorder was originally described as the occurrence of myocardial structural/functional abnormalities associated with T2DM in the absence of coronary heart disease, hypertension and/or obesity. However, supporting evidence has been derived from experimental and small clinical studies. Only a minority of T2DM patients are recognized as having this condition in the absence of contributing factors, thereby limiting its clinical utility. Therefore, this concept is increasingly being viewed along the evolving HF trajectory, where patients with T2DM and asymptomatic structural/functional cardiac abnormalities could be considered as having pre-HF. The importance of recognizing this stage has gained interest due to the potential for current treatments to halt or delay the progression to overt HF in some patients. This document is an expert consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC and the ESC Working Group on Myocardial & Pericardial Diseases. It summarizes contemporary understanding of the association between T2DM and HF and discuses current knowledge and uncertainties about diabetic myocardial disorder that deserve future research. It also proposes a new definition, whereby diabetic myocardial disorder is defined as systolic and/or diastolic myocardial dysfunction in the presence of diabetes. Diabetes is rarely exclusively responsible for myocardial dysfunction, but usually acts in association with obesity, arterial hypertension, chronic kidney disease and/or coronary artery disease, causing additive myocardial impairment.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
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".