MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023446405 · doi:10.1111/echo.12692

Assessment of Image Quality in Real Time Three‐Dimensional Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography: An Integrated 2D/3D Approach

2014· article· en· W2023446405 on OpenAlex
Amer M. Johri, David W. Chitty, Lanqi Hua, Gergana Marincheva, Michael H. Picard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEchocardiography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage qualityMedicineDobutamineVentricle3D ultrasoundProtocol (science)VisualizationModality (human–computer interaction)Cardiac imagingRadiologyStress EchocardiographyUltrasoundComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceCardiologyImage (mathematics)HemodynamicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) stress echocardiography is a relatively new technique offering the potential to acquire images of the entire left ventricle from 1 or 2 transducer positions in a time-efficient manner. Relative to two-dimensional (2D) imaging, the ability to quickly acquire full volume images during peak stress with 3D echocardiography can eliminate left ventricular (LV) foreshortening while reducing inter-operator variability. Our objectives were to (1) determine the practicality of a novel integrated 2D/3D stress protocol in incorporating 3D imaging into a standard 2D stress echocardiogram and (2) to determine whether the quality of imaging using the novel 2D/3D protocol was sufficient for interpretation. METHODS: Twenty-five patients referred for stress echocardiography underwent an integrated 2D/3D image acquisition protocol. LV segments were scored from 0 (absent or no clear endocardial visualization) to 3 (excellent/full visualization of endocardial border) with each modality. 2D segment quality scoring was compared with 3D. An integrated score was compared with either 2D or 3D imaging alone. RESULTS: Two-dimensional and 3D imaging were optimal for differing segments and the integrated protocol was superior to either modality alone. 3D imaging was superior in visualizing the anterior and anterolateral region of the base segments, compared to 2D imaging. 3D imaging was less useful for the base, the mid-inferior, and the inferoseptal segments, thus emphasizing the need to retain 2D imaging in stress echocardiography at this time. CONCLUSION: The integrated 2D/3D protocol approach to stress echocardiography is technically feasible and maximizes image quality of dobutamine stress echocardiography, improving patient assessment.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · 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