MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403284902 · doi:10.14740/cr1679

Diverse Concepts in Definitions of Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Theory and Practice

2024· review· en· W4403284902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael C. Myers, Boris Breznen, Yue Zhong, Sonomi Maruyama, Cindy Bueno, Arnaud Bastien, Mir Sohail Fazeli, Negar Golchin

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilated cardiomyopathyCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineCardiomyopathyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is evolving as new insights into the underlying pathophysiology become available. Professional organizations and clinical experts are improving definitions of DCM, allowing for more accurate treatment recommendations. This review summarized key published literature describing definitions and/or diagnostic criteria for DCM. Embase was searched from database inception to September 19, 2022 for 1) publications reporting definitions of DCM by major professional organizations and related opinion papers, and 2) clinical studies in DCM and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sixty-eight records were included in this review. Definitions of DCM provided by two major professional organizations (American Heart Association (AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC)) agreed on the clinical presentation of DCM; however, they differed in the classification of DCM within the larger context of cardiomyopathy taxonomies. Both organizations agreed that DCM could be clinically defined by the presence of left ventricular dilation and contractile dysfunction in the absence of abnormal loading conditions and severe coronary artery disease. AHA guidelines divided cardiomyopathies into two major groups (primary and secondary) based on predominant organ involvement. DCM was classified as primary cardiomyopathy with mixed (genetic and/or acquired) etiology. Conversely, ESC published a clinically oriented taxonomy in which cardiomyopathies were grouped into specific morphological and functional phenotypes; each was subclassified into familial or non-familial forms. Opinion papers further elaborated on the complex interplay between genetics and environment in the etiology of DCM. Several articles summarized the importance of the new and updated diagnostic tools, such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, electrocardiogram, and other biomarkers, in correctly identifying the etiology of DCM. Within clinical studies, most inclusion criteria used standard definitions proposed by leading professional associations (AHA and ESC). Clinical study investigators sometimes used a narrower definition of DCM using additional criteria for the left ventricular ejection fraction threshold value and left ventricular dilatation. Current efforts in cardiology research are focused on a more granular understanding of DCM etiology and the natural history of the disease. Definitions of DCM found in clinical studies mainly rely on published guidelines, with some studies adding idiosyncratic inclusion criteria refining the broad definitions of DCM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207