Assessment of Image Quality in Real Time Three‐Dimensional Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography: An Integrated 2D/3D Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".