Doppler and M-Mode ultrasonography to time fetal atrial and ventricular contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare ease of recording and reliability of ultrasonographic approaches used to time fetal heart atrial and ventricular contractions. METHODS: Seventeen consecutive fetuses seen at our fetal cardiology unit for possible fetal cardiac arrhythmia were included in this study. The same ultrasonographer obtained M-mode tracings of atrial and ventricular free walls, atrial wall and opening of the aortic valves, a peak of the mitral valve, and the opening of the aortic valves; and Doppler signals of flow-velocity waveforms in the outflow tract of the left ventricle and simultaneous flow-velocity waveforms in the aorta and superior vena cava. The outcome measures were rate of successful attempts and intra- and interobserver reliability coefficients. RESULTS: Valid recordings were made for all patients with one M-mode (atrial and ventricular free walls) and two Doppler (intraventricular, superior vena cava, and ascending aorta) approaches. Atrioventricular intervals were significantly longer with M-mode compared with Doppler ultrasonography. Reliability coefficients were excellent (at least 0.89) for all intraobserver measurements. Comparisons of atrioventricular and ventriculoatrial interval measurements made by two observers gave the following intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval): atrioventricular = M-mode: 0.87 (0.79, 0. 91), left ventricular outflow: 0.93 (0.89, 0.96), superior vena cava-aorta: 0.98 (0.97, 0.99); ventriculoatrial = M-mode: 0.79 (0.67, 0.87), left ventricular outflow: 0.97 (0.95, 0.98); superior vena cava-aorta: 0.99 (0.98, 0.99). CONCLUSION: Fetal atrioventricular intervals measured indirectly from M-mode or Doppler tracings were equally reliable when measured by the same observer; the Doppler approaches had better correlation between measurements made by two different observers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".