MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409859663 · doi:10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101902

Age- and sex-differences and reference values for ventricular strain by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in adults without cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease risk factors

2025· article· en· W4409859663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rohit Pillai, Lu Zhang, Kevin S. Peters, Vibhav Jha, Christopher J. O’Donnell, Warren J. Manning, Connie W. Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsAngiologyMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineReference valuesCardiac magnetic resonanceStrain (injury)Magnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myocardial deformation measured by myocardial strain is an important marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We aimed to establish normal values and examine age- and sex-differences in left and right ventricular (LV, RV) strain using feature tracking cardiovascular resonance (FT-CMR) in adults free of CVD in the community. METHODS: Framingham Heart Study Offspring participants without CVD, hypertension, or diabetes completed CMR (1.5T) (n=903, 59% (533/903) women, 36-88 years of age). Global longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strain (GLS, GCS, and GRS, respectively) were measured by semi-automated LV and RV myocardial segmentation of short-axis, 2-chamber, and 4-chamber images with cvi42 (v.5.13, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Calgary, Canada). RESULTS: Mean LV GLS, GCS, and GRS were -17.8±2.5%, -19.7±2.4%, and 34.9±6.9%, respectively; RV GLS, GCS, and GRS were -20.4±4.0%, -11.7±3.5%, and 19.1±6.5%, respectively. All strain values were of greater magnitude in women than men (all p<0.005). LV and RV GCS and GRS were of greater magnitude (more negative and more positive, respectively) with increasing age (all p<0.001), but GLS was not associated with age. Stratified analysis by sex showed LV and RV GCS and GRS were greater in magnitude with increasing age in women (all p<0.001), whereas no age associations in men were observed. CONCLUSION: We provide FT-CMR reference values for LV and RV strain in a large, community-dwelling U.S. adult cohort free of CVD and CVD risk factors. Women demonstrated greater magnitude LV and RV GCS and GRS with increasing age. The clinical implications of sex-differences in ventricular strain and mechanical remodeling with age deserve further study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207