Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction.

White, H D, Norris, R M, Brown, M A, Brandt, P W, Whitlock, R M, Wild, C J·1987·Circulation

Abstract

Impairment of left ventricular function is the major predictor of mortality after acute myocardial infarction, but it is not known whether this is best described by ejection fraction or by end-systolic or end-diastolic volume. We measured volumes, ejection fractions, and severity of coronary arterial occlusions and stenoses in 605 male patients under 60 years of age at 1 to 2 months after a first (n = 443) or recurrent (n = 162) myocardial infarction and followed these patients for a mean of 78 months for survivors (range 15 to 165 months). There were 101 cardiac deaths, 71 (70%) of which were sudden (instantaneous or found dead). Multivariate analysis with log rank testing and the Cox proportional hazards model showed that end-systolic volume (chi 2 = 82.9) had greater predictive value for survival than end-diastolic volume (chi 2 = 59.0) or ejection fraction (chi 2 = 46.6), whereas stepwise analysis showed that once the relationship between survival and end-systolic volume had been fitted, there was no additional significant predictive information in either end-diastolic volume or ejection fraction. Severity of coronary occlusions and stenoses showed additional prediction of only borderline significance (p = .04 in one analysis), but continued cigarette smoking did remain an independent risk factor after stepwise analysis. For a subset of patients (n = 200) who had taken part in a randomized trial of coronary artery surgery after recovery from infarction, surgical "intention to treat" showed no predictive value.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.76.1.44

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 2,363

Metadata

Authors
White, H. D., Norris, R. M., Brown, M. A., Brandt, P. W., Whitlock, R. M., & Wild, C. J.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1987-07
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
44-51
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2088770941
Cited by
2,363
References
2
FWCI
22.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.76.1.44
The paper
White, H. D., Norris, R. M., Brown, M. A., Brandt, P. W., Whitlock, R. M., & Wild, C. J. (1987). Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.76.1.44

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.