MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052048464 · doi:10.1055/s-2004-813480

Reflected High-intensity Motion Signals: Can This Ultrasound Phenomenon Be Used for Assessment of Left Ventricular Function?

2004· article· en· W2052048464 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUltraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonIntensity (physics)Ventricular functionUltrasoundFunction (biology)Motion (physics)CardiologyPhysicsMedicineAcousticsClassical mechanicsOpticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: In this pioneer study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic role of reflected high-intensity motion signals (RIMS) in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function and to analyze the reproducibility of RIMS. RIMS are also known under the name of "spectral Doppler artifacts" and to date have been attributed only to the category of useless noises. METHODS: The value of RIMS in the evaluation of LV function was analyzed in 173 subjects (57 healthy volunteers and 116 patients with chronic coronary and myocardial diseases and arterial hypertension). The level of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of RIMS was assessed according to the Bland-Altman method in 29 subjects. To record RIMS by conventional pulsed wave Doppler, an apical 4-chamber view was used and the sample volume was placed 3 - 4 cm laterally to the left border of the mitral annulus in projection of the pulmonary tissue. Three components of RIMS are visualized with each cardiac cycle: one systolic (Sa) component and two diastolic (Ea and Aa) components. We have found that RIMS registration did not depend on the quality of LV visualization. In patients with adequate visualization of the cardiac structures and in "difficult" patients with poor LV visualization, RIMS recordings were visually equal. In our study, correlations between LV ejection fraction (EF) and Sa and Aa were found; the cutoff value of Sa < or = 13 cm/s and Aa < or = 15 cm/s separated patients with EF < or = 40 % from other subjects with a sensitivity of 88.2 % and 94.1 % and a specificity of 93.0 % (p <.0001) and 76.9 % (p <.0001), respectively. It was shown that RIMS correlate with the LV diastolic function. The Ea cutoff value of < or = 20 cm/s distinguished subjects with a normal diastolic function from patients with a sensitivity of 88.6 % and a specificity of 80.0 % (p <.0001); the cutoff values of Sa < or = 10 cm/s and Aa < 12 cm/s separated patients with a Grade 4 diastolic dysfunction (according to Canadian consensus recommendations) from other subjects with a sensitivity of 81.8 % and 90.9 %, and a specificity of 98.1 % (p <.0001) and 91.8 % (p <.0001), respectively. The combined evaluation of traditional transmitral E/A ratio and RIMS components allow differentiating of all standard stages of LV diastolic dysfunction in an easy and effective way. The level of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of RIMS appeared to be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Systolic and late diastolic components of RIMS correlate with LV global systolic function, and all components of RIMS correlate with LV global diastolic function; 2. The reproducibility of RIMS components is at an acceptable level; 3. Combined analysis of transmitral E/A ratio and RIMS components can become a promising approach for easy and effective separation of patients with different grades of diastolic dysfunction.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.259 · 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