Quantitative assessment of cardiac output and left ventricular function by noninvasive phase‐contrast and cine MRI: Validation study with invasive pressure‐volume loop analysis in a swine model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate noninvasive cardiac output measurements of phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) and cine MRI using an invasive pressure-volume (PV) loop technique on a swine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared three methods for evaluating cardiac function at rest and under pharmaceutical low-dose inotropic infusion conditions: 1) phase-contrast MRI, 2) cine MRI, and 3) PV loop relationship. These measurements were made in 14 domestic pigs under rest conditions. Identical MRI acquisitions and PV loop analysis were performed on six pigs from the same group that received an infusion of dobutamine 2.5 μg/kg/min. Cardiac outputs from all measurements were analyzed and compared using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Noninvasive PC-MRI and cine MRI did not show any significant differences compared to an invasive PV loop technique for measurement of cardiac output under both rest (PC-MRI, cine MRI, and PV loop, 3.17 ± 0.45, 3.18 ± 0.61, 3.45 ± 0.41 L/min, respectively) and pharmaceutical low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (PC-MRI, cine MRI, and PV loop, 4.78 ± 0.53, 4.7 ± 0.6, 4.96 ± 0.48 L/min, respectively). Statistical analysis showed good agreement of cardiac output measurements at rest (R(2) = 0.83) and under low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (R(2) = 0.74) using PC-MRI and PV loop techniques. Cardiac output measurement using cine MRI and PV loop techniques also showed good agreement at rest (R(2) = 0.85) and under low-dose inotropic infusion conditions (R(2) = 0.76). Furthermore, cardiac outputs determined with the three modalities showed good agreement over a wide range of heart rates (90-180 bpm). CONCLUSION: MRI can provide a reliable, noninvasive measurement of cardiac output that can be carried out without the complications that are inherent with current invasive procedures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".