A simple method for characterizing left ventricular remodeling by cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remodeling of the left ventricle (LV) occurs in response to various physiological and pathophysiological conditions. The American Society of Echocardiography recommend that LV remodeling be described as the relationship between LV mass and LV wall thickness based on 1-D and 2-D measurements. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) provides accurate 3-D measures of LV volumes and mass; however, there is no universally agreed upon approach to measure remodeling. We propose using the ratio of LV mass to LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) as the left ventricular remodeling index (LVRI). To describe and compare patterns of LV remodeling in various cardiac conditions using CMR. We hypothesized that the LVRI would accurately reflect underlying pathophysiology. A total of 105 consecutive cases (89 males, mean age 48±18), with elevated LV mass (referenced to Hudsmith et. al., JCMR 2005) from 2006-2009 were obtained from the CMR clinical database at our institution. 32 healthy volunteers served as controls. Based on the clinical history and the qualitative CMR findings, cases were categorized as: inflammatory (INF), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), pressure loaded (PL) (eg. aortic stenosis and systemic hypertension) and volume loaded (VL) (eg. aortic regurgitation and mitral regurgitation). Quantitative volumetric analyses were performed using standard imaging analysis software (Leonardo, Siemens). A short axis stack of steady state free precession cines were used to obtain LV mass and LVEDV by methods of disks. The LVRI was calculated from the ratio of LV mass to LVEDV. Statistical significance was assessed using an unpaired Student’s T-test. The DCM, ICM and PL groups were significantly older and the INF group had a greater proportion of males compared to controls. There was no statistically significant difference in LVRI between males and females or between older (age >35) and younger adults. The mean LVRI for controls was 0.87±0.1g/ml. Compared to controls, mean LVRI was elevated in INF (0.99±0.15g/ml, p=0.002) and PL (0.98±0.12g/ml p=0.002). Conversely, mean LVRI was reduced in ICM (0.79±0.13g/ml, p=0.014) and VL (0.74±0.13g/ml, p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in mean LVRI between DCM and controls. Table 1 . LVRI is a simple method for quantifying in a variety of cardiac conditions. The observed values reflect underlying pathophysiology, with elevated indices in myocardial edema or increased afterload, and decreased indices with LV wall infarction or increased preload. Future studies should assess its role in the serial assessment of ventricular geometry and at earlier stages of disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".