Evaluation of Adult Congenital Heart Disease by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging plays an essential role in the evaluation and follow-up of adult congenital heart disease (ACHD), providing safe, high-resolution imaging of some of the most complex anatomies encountered. Unlimited by acoustic windows and capable of tissue characterization, CMR is devoid of ionizing radiation and provides superior three-dimensional spatial resolution to transthoracic echocardiography and superior temporal resolution to computed tomography, making it the gold standard for various cardiac and great vessel imaging indications in ACHD. In this state-of-the art review, we provide an overview of CMR examination methods and detail the various approaches and classical findings in the more common forms of ACHD. Although this review touches upon technical aspects of CMR imaging in ACHD, it is primarily geared toward the adult congenital caregiver (i.e., clinical, interventional, or surgical), highlighting relevant practical considerations. To enhance the clinical utility of this review, numerous examples with intraoperative correlates are provided to highlight our imaging approaches for various defects. As CMR image acquisition may be time consuming and requires patient collaboration (e.g., intermittent breath holding), a systemic approach is required to maximize efficiency. A thorough knowledge of ACHD anatomy and natural history is essential in maximizing image interpretation. Proficient scanning is further enabled by clearly outlined study objectives with prior documentation of interventional and surgical procedures, where applicable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".