MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403842539 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.189

Exploring physiological determinants of ventilatory inefficiency in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients

2024· article· en· W4403842539 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Attanasio, Giuseppe Guida, Giandomenico Disabato, Giulia Paglione, Serenella Castelvecchio, Lara Tondi, Antonia Camporeale, F. Bandera, Marco Iannotta, Marco Guazzi, Massimo Lombardi, Pietro Spagnolo, Massimo Piepoli

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyCardiologyInefficiencyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The role of cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) has been previously examined, revealing two prognostic parameters: peak Vo2 and the VE/VCO2 slope. Specifically, individuals with a VE/VCO2 value above 31 (ventilator inefficiency) demonstrate a poorer prognosis. Purpose This study aims to analyze the physiological factors contributing to ventilatory inefficiency in individuals with HCM. Methods In this retrospective study, 43 patients HCM patients underwent resting transthoracic echocardiography, CPET combined with echocardiography during physical exertion, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Ventilatory inefficiency was defined as a VE/VCO2 slope exceeding 31, leading to the identification of two groups: Group A (those with ventilatory inefficiency) and Group B (those without ventilatory inefficiency). Results Nine patients exhibited ventilatory inefficiency, while 34 had a normal VE/VCO2 slope. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups concerning clinical and therapeutic characteristics. Subjects with ventilatory inefficiency showed reduced oxygen pulse (8.3 ± 2.6 vs 11.7 ± 4, p 0.013) and peak VO2 values (13 ± 5 vs 19 ± 5, p 0.005), lower left ventricle global longitudinal strain (-15±3 vs -17± 2, p 0,012), the exertional TAPSE/SPAP ratio (0.46 [0.32-0.48] vs 0.58 [0.47-0.80], p 0.001), exertional TAPSE (23 ± 3 vs 28 ± 4, p 0.001), and indexed stroke volume of the left ventricle assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (38±8 vs 48±10, p 0.011) (Table 1). The right ventricular function under physical exertion (peak TAPSE and TAPSE/sPAP) and left ventricular functional parameters (index stroke volume and global longitudinal strain) predicted the presence of ventilatory inefficiency. Conclusions This study highlights the role of exertional parameters in the origin of ventilatory inefficiency.Correlation tableFigure with scatter plot

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→