Factors Impacting Echocardiographic Imaging after the Fontan Procedure: A Report from the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross‐Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Echocardiographic image quality in Fontan survivors may be limited by a variety of factors. We sought to describe echocardiographic quality and factors associated with study quality in subjects participating in the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-Sectional Study. Echocardiograms were obtained at 7 clinical sites using a standard protocol. Quality grading and analysis were performed by a core laboratory. Univariate and multivariable modeling were performed to assess factors associated with quality and ability to obtain images sufficient for prespecified quantitative analysis. A total of 543 echocardiograms were obtained. The quality of echocardiograms improved over the duration of the study. The great arteries, systemic veins, and pulmonary veins were less likely to be adequately imaged than other cardiac structures. Quantitative analysis of ventricular volume was possible in 76% overall, but only 41% of those with mixed ventricular morphology. Factors independently associated with better quality included younger age, levocardia, acquisition of the echocardiogram at a longer time since the beginning of enrollment, absence of a pulmonary artery stent, and clinical site. Patient and center-specific factors are associated with echocardiographic quality after the Fontan procedure. Increased familiarity and experience with a standard imaging protocol is likely to result in improved quality.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".