2575 following model derived from the MVO(+)/IMH(+) group data: ½ln IMH ¼ 0:348 þ 0:718 ln MVO þ 0:454 sexþ 0:395 smoke : All predictors in the above model were statistically signiﬁcant. Observed and predicted IMH values are displayed in Fig. 1a and b. Predicted values are marked as stars. In either case it is evident that only two patients had sufﬁciently small predicted IMH outside the observed value range in the other patients. Theoretically, these two values could have been missed by T2W CMR. Con- versely, several of the predicted values were still of sufﬁcient size, at least comparable to that of the observed counterparts, and as such they could have been detected by CMR. Functional parameters and LV remodelling The LVEDVi and LVESVi decreased from baseline to follow-up and were highest in the MVO(+)/MVO(+) group, intermediate in the MVO(+)/IMH(−) group and lowest in the MVO(−)/IMH(−) group at both time points (Table 2). Likewise, LVEF improved in all three groups, but remained lowest in the MVO(+)/MVO(+) group, intermediate in the MVO(+)/IMH(−) group and highest in the MVO(−)/IMH(−) group in the univariate comparisons (Fig. 4). Table 3 displays the ﬁxed effect parameter estimates of the random intercept model. Subjects were taken as random effect, whereas time and MVO/IMH groups were taken as ﬁxed effect factors adjusted for IS. LVEF signiﬁcantly increased over time (for all groups), showing a signiﬁcant negative association with IS. Note that the presence of IMH or MVO had no signiﬁcant independent predictive value for LVEF once adjusted for IS. Fig. 2 Magnetic resonance image examples from each patient group. Top row (a, b): MVO(−)/IMH(−) patient; middle row (c, d): MVO(+)/ IMH(−) patient; bottom row (e, f): MVO(+)/(IMH(+) patient. T2-weighted images are shown on the left (a, c, e) and corresponding late gadolinium-enhanced images on the right (b, d, f). Oedema and infarct border zones are indicated by arrowheads and IMH and MVO by asterisks