Measuring flow-mediated dilation through transverse and longitudinal imaging: comparison and validation of methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional ultrasound images (3DUS), having two spatial and one temporal dimension, were taken of the brachial artery during baseline conditions, in the transverse and longitudinal planes. The transverse images were analyzed by three different techniques used to quantify flow-mediated dilation (FMD): (1) measuring vessel area manually (TIMA), (2) measuring vessel area semi-automatically (TISA) and (3) measuring vessel diameter (TID). The inter- and intra-observer variability and transducer repositioning variability of each method were compared to each other and to the variability of measurements taken using the traditional method of measuring vessel FMD through measuring vessel diameter on longitudinal images (LID). The percent coefficient-of-variation describing the inter-observer variability (COV(inter)) was similar for the methods, indicating that each method was equally reproducible by the different observers. The percent coefficient-of-variation describing the intra-observer variability (COV(intra)) and the smallest detectable percent change in diameter (Δd(intra)) for each method indicated that TID was the most precise at measuring vessel diameter, and could measure the smallest changes in diameter between successive measurements (COV(intra) = 0.31%, Δd(intra) = 0.87%). LID performed the poorest (COV(intra) = 0.57%, Δd(intra) = 1.59%). The percent coefficient-of-variation describing transducer repositioning (COV(rep)) and the smallest detectable percent change in FMD over time (ΔFMD) for each method indicated that TIMA was the most reproducible method (COV(rep) = 2.35%, ΔFMD = 6.52%) closely followed by TISA. TID performed the poorest (COV(rep) = 5.37%, ΔFMD = 14.89%). TIMA and TISA were found not to be statistically different so we suggest TISA as the method of choice to maximize reproducibility between measurements over time, as it is faster and simpler to perform. In each experiment it was clear that transverse imaging introduced equal or less variability into diameter measurements as compared to longitudinal imaging and we suggest this imaging plane be used in all assessments of FMD.
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 | 0.032 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".