ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in the Differential Diagnosis Between Athlete's Heart and Cardiac Pathology: Current Evidence and Diagnostic Challenges.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sports cardiologists frequently face the challenge of distinguishing physiological cardiac adaptation to intensive training ("athlete's heart") from early or mild cardiac pathology, a dilemma in which both false-positive and false-negative assessments carry meaningful consequences for the athlete. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) provides a dynamic, functional complement to structural and electrical assessment, but its value in this specific differential-diagnosis context has not been comprehensively synthesized. This narrative review examines current evidence on CPET in distinguishing athlete's heart from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, and thoracic wall deformities such as pectus excavatum, alongside the physiological basis of high exercise capacity in athletes and the athlete-specific reference values now becoming available. Across conditions, peak oxygen uptake alone proved an unreliable discriminator. Ventilatory efficiency, oxygen-pulse kinetics, and the exercise arrhythmic and blood-pressure response appear to carry additional information when interpreted within a multiparametric framework, although the supporting studies are observational, mostly single-centre, and were not designed to compare these variables against one another. Special populations, including veteran athletes, women, and those with congenital heart disease, require dedicated reference data that remain incomplete, and emerging artificial-intelligence-based interpretive tools require athlete-specific validation before clinical adoption. A practical, stepwise diagnostic framework integrating CPET with imaging and shared decision-making is proposed. It reflects the authors' synthesis of the reviewed evidence rather than a prospectively validated or society-endorsed pathway. Closing the evidence gaps identified here, particularly for underrepresented athlete populations and prospective outcomes data, should be a priority for future research in sports cardiology.
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.