MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4138528: Clinical Characteristics of Five Different Endotypes from Coronary Reactivity Testing, and the Emergence of Sex Patterns in Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction

2024· article· en· W4404341268 on OpenAlexaff
J. Namkoong, Mary C. McCarthy, Olga Toleva, Lynne E. Nield, Stéphane Rinfret, Steven E.S. Miner

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterHospital for Sick ChildrenSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary heart diseaseCoronary diseaseIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The common preconception is that non-obstructive coronary artery disease(NOCAD) predominantly affects females with little to no cardiac risk factors. However, it is unclear whether there is a significant difference in baseline characteristics between those with a positive vs negative coronary reactivity testing(CRT) result. Furthermore, CRT explores multiple pathophysiological mechanisms which make a positive result nuanced. This study identifies 5 different endotypes based on CRT results, aiming to identify phenotypic characteristics that correlate with these endotypes. METHODS: 409 patients were included in a cohort study, representing all patients referred for CRT to a tertiary referral centre for NOCAD, between 2016-2024. Patients underwent protocol CRT of coronary flow reserve(CFR) and index of microvascular resistance(IMR) measurements following adenosine infusion(140mcg/kg/min) and bolus acetylcholine(100mcg). Results were compared by positive vs negative CRT, normal vs abnormal CFR/IMR, and by 5 different endotypes identified from CRT result combinations. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in clinical characteristics between the positive vs negative CRT result groups. However, with further stratification, there were significant sex differences and cardiac risk profile differences in CFR and IMR results. There was a greater proportion of females in the abnormal (low) CFR group(p<0.001), and higher burden of cardiac risk factors in the abnormal (high) IMR group(p<0.001). The highest burden of cardiac risk factors was seen in the 'Traditional Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction (CMD)' endotype, defined as those with abnormal(low) CFR and abnormal(high) IMR. The 'Functional CMD' endotype was characterised by younger females, whilst the 'Compensated CMD' and 'Coronary spasm' endotype showed no sex difference. The normal CFR and normal IMR endotype reflected the referred population(Figure 1). CONCLUSION: There is an emergence of clinical phenotypes according to the five coronary reactivity testing endotypes. Lower CFR appears to be a more “female pattern” of microvascular dysfunction. Endotypes reflect underlying pathology and may provide mechanistic explanations for sex differences in the microvascular dysfunction types of NOCAD, whilst explaining the lack of sex differences in other types. Further detailed understanding of CRT endotypes will allow us to understand the mechanistic differences in cardiovascular outcomes between males and females.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity→French-language works237,207→