MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403284904 · doi:10.14740/cr1673

Prevalence, Clinical Manifestations, and Adverse Outcomes of Left Ventricular Noncompaction in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4403284904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jordan Llerena-Velastegui, Almendra Lopez-Usina, Camila Mantilla-Cisneros

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCardiologyInternal medicineLeft ventricular noncompactionAdverse effectHeart failureCardiomyopathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) is recognized within the spectrum of adult cardiomyopathies for its unique pathophysiologic features and clinical challenges. This condition exhibits a wide range of clinical manifestations, from asymptomatic states to severe cardiovascular complications, making its diagnosis and management challenging. This study aimed to synthesize current data on the prevalence, diagnostic methods, clinical outcomes, and treatment efficacy of LVNC in adults to address gaps in understanding and management strategies. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of research from 2000 to March 2024 was conducted, focusing on studies involving adults diagnosed with LVNC. This approach aimed to collect data on the prevalence of LVNC, the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities, clinical manifestations, and the impact of different treatment strategies. Results: The study showed a prevalence of LVNC of 0.5%, with cardiovascular magnetic resonance outperforming echocardiography in diagnosis with a detection rate of 1.3%. Mortality and heart transplantation rates were 12% and 7%, respectively. Significant predictors of adverse outcomes included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV, ventricular tachycardia, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), guiding a nuanced approach in tailoring therapeutic strategies to optimize patient care and outcomes. Conclusions: This study advances the understanding of LVNC by refining diagnostic criteria and evaluating management strategies, highlighting the superiority of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. It identifies predictors of adverse outcomes and assesses treatment efficacy, urging precision in diagnosis and tailored treatments. Its comprehensive analysis and methodological rigor make it a key resource advocating a multidisciplinary approach to improve patient outcomes in LVNC.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.025
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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