MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944994616 · doi:10.1111/ajt.12811

Cardiovascular MRI Predicts 5-Year Adverse Clinical Outcome in Heart Transplant Recipients

2014· article· en· W1944994616 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig Butler, D.H. Kim, Kelvin Chow, Mustafa Toma, Richard B. Thompson, Michael Mengel, Mark J. Haykowsky, Glen J. Pearson, D. Ian Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart transplantationCardiac magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingHazard ratioHeart failureCardiac function curveRadiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imaging recommendations for the follow-up of heart transplant recipients (HTRs) lack evidence justifying their prognostic value. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) can characterize heart structure and function and has prognostic value in many myocardial diseases. We hypothesized that CMRI evaluation of cardiac allografts would predict adverse events. We performed CMRI on 60 HTRs evaluating biventricular size, function and myocardial scar. We performed survival analysis to identify independent predictors of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization. Participants had a mean age of 51 ± 14 years, mean graft age of 3.5 years (±4) and 75% are male. Median follow-up time was 4.9 years with 22 CV hospitalizations and 7 CV deaths. A multivariable survival analysis of imaging and clinical variables identified myocardial scar (hazard ratio [HR] of 10.7, p = 0.005), right ventricular end- diastolic volume index (RVEDVI; 1.1/mL/m2, p = 0.001), graft age (HR = 1.2/year, p = 0.004) and previous allograft rejection (HR = 4.4, p = 0.006) as predictive of time to CV death or hospitalization. CMRI-derived myocardial scar and RVEDVI are independently associated with CV outcomes in HTRs. Imaging recommendations for the follow-up of heart transplant recipients (HTRs) lack evidence justifying their prognostic value. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) can characterize heart structure and function and has prognostic value in many myocardial diseases. We hypothesized that CMRI evaluation of cardiac allografts would predict adverse events. We performed CMRI on 60 HTRs evaluating biventricular size, function and myocardial scar. We performed survival analysis to identify independent predictors of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization. Participants had a mean age of 51 ± 14 years, mean graft age of 3.5 years (±4) and 75% are male. Median follow-up time was 4.9 years with 22 CV hospitalizations and 7 CV deaths. A multivariable survival analysis of imaging and clinical variables identified myocardial scar (hazard ratio [HR] of 10.7, p = 0.005), right ventricular end- diastolic volume index (RVEDVI; 1.1/mL/m2, p = 0.001), graft age (HR = 1.2/year, p = 0.004) and previous allograft rejection (HR = 4.4, p = 0.006) as predictive of time to CV death or hospitalization. CMRI-derived myocardial scar and RVEDVI are independently associated with CV outcomes in HTRs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207