Best Method for Right Atrial Volume Assessment by Two‐Dimensional Echocardiography: Validation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Echocardiographic methods for estimating right atrial (RA) volume have not been standardized. Our aim was to evaluate two-dimensional (2D) echocardiographic methods of RA volume assessment, using RA volume by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the reference. METHODS AND RESULTS: Right atrial volume was assessed in 51 patients (mean age 63 ± 14 years, 33 female) who underwent comprehensive 2D echocardiography and cardiac MRI for clinically indicated reasons. Echocardiographic RA volume methods included (1) biplane area length, using four-chamber view twice (biplane 4C-4C); (2) biplane area length, using four-chamber and subcostal views (biplane 4C-subcostal); and (3) single plane Simpson's method of disks (Simpson's). Echocardiographic RA volumes as well as linear RA major and minor dimensions were compared to RA volume by MRI using correlation and Bland-Altman methods, and evaluated for inter-observer reproducibility and accuracy in discriminating RA enlargement. All echocardiography volumetric methods performed well compared to MRI, with Pearson's correlation of 0.98 and concordance correlation ≥0.91 for each. For bias and limits of agreement, biplane 4C-4C (bias -4.81 mL/m(2) , limits of agreement ±9.8 mL/m(2) ) and Simpson's (bias -5.15 mL/m(2) , limits of agreement ±10.1 mL/m(2) ) outperformed biplane 4C-subcostal (bias -8.36 mL/m(2) , limits of agreement ±12.5 mL/m(2) ). Accuracy for discriminating RA enlargement was higher for all volumetric methods than for linear measurements. Inter-observer variability was satisfactory across all methods. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to MRI, biplane 4C-4C and single plane Simpson's are highly accurate and reproducible 2D echocardiography methods for estimating RA volume. Linear dimensions are inaccurate and should be abandoned.
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 | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".