ArticlePhysiological reports2026
First-phase ejection fraction and ventricular-arterial coupling across the lifespan: An in silico analysis.
Article in Physiological reports, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
First-phase ejection fraction (EF1), the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to maximal ventricular fiber shortening, has shown strong prognostic value in cardiovascular diseases, outperforming conventional LVEF, but remains uncharacterised in healthy individuals. An in silico cohort of healthy adults (n = 3837), from 25 to 75 years old was analyzed, showing good agreement with in vivo data. EF1 was derived from aortic flow waves as the proportion of end-diastolic volume ejected up to peak aortic flow. Contractility (Ees) and afterload (Ea) were derived from pressure-volume loops. Correlations were quantified using Pearson's coefficient and determinants were assessed using linear regression, adjusted for age and heart rate. Mean EF1 was 50 ± 3% versus LVEF 67 ± 2%, and EF1 was less influenced by age (β: 0.09 [95% confidence interval] [0.05, 0.12] vs. β: -0.27 [-0.30, -0.23]). EF1 correlated strongly with Ees compared to LVEF (r: 0.72 vs. 0.46, p < 0.001) and showed minimal correlation with Ea in contrast to LVEF (r: -0.10 vs. -0.37, p < 0.001). In regression, β was larger for Ees and Ea/Ees, and Ea smaller, in EF1 compared to LVEF. In conclusion, EF1 demonstrated a strong association with contractility and a negligible relationship with afterload, highlighting its potential as a sensitive, afterload-independent measure of myocardial contractility.
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.