MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115729159 · doi:10.7775/rac.v90i5.8

Reserva contráctil por fracción de eyección sola, o con elastancia. ¿Cuál es el mejor predictor de eventos luego de un Eco Estrés sin isquemia?

2022· article· W7115729159 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Argentina de Cardiología · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjection fractionElastanceMyocardial infarctionLog-rank testStroke volumeRetrospective cohort studyLinear regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Argentina de CardiologíaSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207