MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603895212 · doi:10.1186/1532-429x-17-s1-p150

Prognostic value of myocardial T2 mapping post reperfused acute myocardial infarction

2015· article· en· W1603895212 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad I. Zia, Idan Roifman, Nilesh R. Ghugre, Bradley H. Strauss, Alexander Dick, Graham A. Wright, Kim A. Connelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaceMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionHazard ratioProportional hazards modelAngiologyHeart failureRevascularizationConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods Fifty-four patients were enrolled post primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and underwent CMR on a 1.5T scanner at 48 hours. Myocardial edema was quantified using a T2 mapping technique, while infarct size was assessed via a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted inversion recovery gradient-echo sequence. Information regarding four clinical outcomes: a) mortality, b) repeat myocardial infarction, c) heart failure hospitalization and d) repeat revascularization was collected at 12 months post index primary PCI. Our primary clinical endpoint was a composite of these 4 outcome measures of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to calculate the relative risk of MACE for increased T2 values, adjusted for baseline characteristics related to increased edema (diabetes status, symptom to balloon time, infarct size). Results The mean age was 59.6 ± 8.2 years, 88% were males, 35% were diabetics, 44% were hypertensive. The mean symptom to balloon time was 395 ± 230 minutes and mean door to balloon time was 81.5 ± 39 minutes. The mean T2 value was higher in the infarct segment compared to remote segment (55.1 ± 7.6 ms vs 40.2 ± 2.6 ms, p<0.001). Patients with MACE (n=12) had higher infarct segment T2 values compared to patients that did not (64.4 ± 7.3 ms vs 51.1 ± 5.8 ms, p<0.001). After adjustment for variables associated with increased edema, a T2 value of ≥ 62 ms was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI:1.01-1.07, p=0.009) for MACE at 12 months (Table 1). Conclusions In reperfused STEMI patients, higher T2 values in the infarct segment are associated with worse prognosis. This suggests the need to develop therapies aimed at reducing myocardial edema post acute myocardial infarction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207