MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414645217 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00587.2025

Mechanisms of exercise limitation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity: a case of engine-chassis mismatch

2025· article· en· W4414645217 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Foulkes, Sara Ferreira, Maurício Milani, Youri Bekhuis, Maarten Falter, Boris Delpire, Rik Pauwels, Sarah Stroobants, Siddharth Jogani, Simon Vanhentenrijk, Sibel Altintas, Rūta Jasaitytė, Lieven Herbots, Guido Claessen, Mark J. Haykowsky, Jan Verwerft

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionStroke volumeHeart failureExercise intoleranceEjection fractionObesityBody mass indexCardiac output

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with obesity with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have larger hearts and preserved cardiac reserve, but this was insufficient to maintain bodyweight-indexed V̇o 2peak at comparable levels to patients without obesity. Obesity did not exacerbate other HFpEF impairments, such as decreased oxygen extraction or elevated pulmonary pressures. This suggests weight loss may help to improve exercise intolerance in obese patients with HFpEF, but should be combined with other treatments to target all of the features that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207