ArticleScientific reports2025
Complementary classification of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy using unsupervised cluster analysis on left ventricular function.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Contemporary classification of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) was mainly based on the site of myocardial hypertrophy and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. A complementary classification based on left ventricular function could provide a powerful tool to identify individuals with high risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and guide individualized managements. Multi-dimensional echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular function derived from conventional echocardiography, tissue Doppler imaging, and speckle tracking echocardiography were obtained in 266 HCM patients and 169 healthy controls (HCs). According to these parameters, HCM subtypes were calculated by principal component analysis and unsupervised cluster analysis. Variables of different groups were compared. The prognosis between HCM subtypes were evaluated. There were two HCM subtypes generated, subtype 1 HCMs (n = 123) and subtype 2 HCMs (n = 143). Compared to HCs, left ventricular diastolic and systolic function were significantly declined to varying degrees in both subtype 1 HCMs and subtype 2 HCMs, especially in subtype 1 HCMs (all P value < 0.001). Subtype 1 HCMs characterized as increased LAVI and E/E', decreased mean E' and untwist rate, increased global and segmental longitudinal strains, circumferential strains and radial strains, decreased rotation degree, twist degree, and twist rate, in comparison with subtype 2 HCMs (all P value < 0.001). Notably, subtype 1 HCMs were more susceptible to adverse prognosis of atrial fibrillation (HR: 4.34; 95% CI 1.08-17.53; P value: 0.039). Collectively, we stratified HCM patients into two subtypes with different diastolic and systolic performance and risk of atrial fibrillation. This complementary classification might eventually help to target management of HCM patients who would benefit most.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.