Hypokinetic nondilated cardiomyopathy: clinical characteristics, prognosis, and therapy response compared to dilated cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Hypokinetic nondilated cardiomyopathy (HNDC) is defined by left ventricular dysfunction without significant dilatation. The distinct features and prognosis of HNDC compared to classical dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) are partially unexplored. We investigated the differences between HNDC and DCM cohorts from the multicentric Italian IN-HF registry. METHODS: All patients with a diagnosis of DCM enrolled in the registry between 2008 and 2023 were considered. HNDC was defined by a left ventricular end-diastolic diameter of less than 34 mm/m2 in men and less than 31 mm/m2 in women, or a left ventricular end-diastolic volume of 70 ml/m2 or less in men and less than 60 ml/m2 in women. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs). RESULTS: Of 1748 patients, 568 (32.5%) met the criteria for HNDC. HNDC patients were more likely to be male, with a higher prevalence of obesity and atrial fibrillation. HNDC also showed less advanced disease (less advanced New York Association class, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, lower prevalence of moderate-severe mitral regurgitation, and less atrial dilatation). After a median follow-up of 13 months, the primary outcome occurred less frequently in HNDC compared with DCM [12.5 vs. 17.1%; hazard ratio 0.762, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.581-0.999; P = 0.049]. However, the adjusted prognosis was similar between groups (hazard ratio 1.031, 95% CI 0.771-1.380; P = 0.834). Beta-blockers emerged as the most protective drug for HNDC (hazard ratio 0.462, 95% CI 0.258-0.826; P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: HNDC appears as a distinct form of DCM with milder clinical presentation. However, the absence of LV dilation did not independently influence prognosis. Beta-blockers may offer the most consistent benefit in HNDC.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".