Cardiac MR Elastography: Comparison with left ventricular pressure measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) with ventricular pressure changes in an animal model. Three pigs of different cardiac physiology (weight, 25 to 53 kg; heart rate, 61 to 93 bpm; left ventricular [LV] end-diastolic volume, 35 to 70 ml) were subjected to invasive LV pressure measurement by catheter and noninvasive cardiac MRE. Cardiac MRE was performed in a short-axis view of the heart and applying a 48.3-Hz shear-wave stimulus. Relative changes in LV-shear wave amplitudes during the cardiac cycle were analyzed. Correlation coefficients between wave amplitudes and LV pressure as well as between wave amplitudes and LV diameter were determined. A relationship between MRE and LV pressure was observed in all three animals (R 2 ≥ 0.76). No correlation was observed between MRE and LV diameter (R 2 ≤ 0.15). Instead, shear wave amplitudes decreased 102 ± 58 ms earlier than LV diameters at systole and amplitudes increased 175 ± 40 ms before LV dilatation at diastole. Amplitude ratios between diastole and systole ranged from 2.0 to 2.8, corresponding to LV pressure differences of 60 to 73 mmHg. Externally induced shear waves provide information reflecting intraventricular pressure changes which, if substantiated in further experiments, has potential to make cardiac MRE a unique noninvasive imaging modality for measuring pressure-volume function of the heart.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".