Reserva contráctil por fracción de eyección sola, o con elastancia. ¿Cuál es el mejor predictor de eventos luego de un Eco Estrés sin isquemia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The behavior of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during exercise is used to measure contractile reserve (CR). CR measured by elastance could have greater prognostic value. Objective: To establish whether the measurement of CR by elastance adds long-term prognostic value to CR measured by LVEF in patients with a Stress Echo without myocardial ischemia. Material and methods: Retrospective study, carried out in 904 patients with an exercise Stress Echo without ischemia. CR was assessed by LVEF and by elastance. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1: presence of CR by LVEF (in turn this group was divided into 2 subgroups: Group 1A, CR with elastance present, and Group 1B: absence of CR by elastance), and Group 2: patients with absence of CR by LVEF. The follow-up was 17,7 ± 5,4 months. Outcomes considered were death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and cardiovascular hospitalization. Results: 536 patients were included in Group 1, 200 (37,3 %) in Group 1A and 336 (62,7%) in Group 1B. In Group 2, 368 patients were included. At follow-up, patients in Group 2 had more events, 30 (8.1%) vs. 22 (2.6%) (HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.95-5.9, log rank test p <0.001). Within G1, patients in Group 1B presented more events: 18(5.3%) vs 4 (2%) (HR 2.46 CI 95% 1.06-7.3, log rank test p <0.05). In the regression model, CR assessed by LVEF and additionally by elastance was the only significant outcome predictor (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.83-5.6, p <0.001). Conclusions: In an exercise Stress Echo negative for ischemia, CR behavior evaluated by elastance allowed us to identify a subgroup with a worse long-term prognosis in patients with normal LVEF response. How to cite this article: Lowenstein Haber DM, Arbucci R, Merlo P, Martínez L, Gastaldello N, Saad AK, y cols. Contractile reserve by left ventricular ejection fraction alone, or considering elastance. ¿Which is the best predictor of events after a Stress Echo without ischemia? Rev Argent Cardiol 2022;90:329-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.7775/rac.v90.i5.2
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".