3D Echo systematically underestimates right ventricular volumes compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance in adult congenital heart disease patients with moderate or severe RV dilatation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three dimensional echo is a relatively new technique which may offer a rapid alternative for the examination of the right heart. However its role in patients with non-standard ventricular size or anatomy is unclear. This study compared volumetric measurements of the right ventricle in 25 patients with adult congenital heart disease using both cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and three dimensional echocardiography. METHODS: Patients were grouped by diagnosis into those expected to have normal or near-normal RV size (patients with repaired coarctation of the aorta) and patients expected to have moderate or worse RV enlargement (patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot or transposition of the great arteries). Right ventricular end diastolic volume, end systolic volume and ejection fraction were compared using both methods with CMR regarded as the reference standard RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis of the 25 patients demonstrated that for both RV EDV and RV ESV, there was a significant and systematic under-estimation of volume by 3D echo compared to CMR. This bias led to a mean underestimation of RV EDV by -34% (95%CI: -91% to + 23%). The degree of underestimation was more marked for RV ESV with a bias of -42% (95%CI: -117% to + 32%). There was also a tendency to overestimate RV EF by 3D echo with a bias of approximately 13% (95% CI -52% to +27%). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in volumetric measurements were observed between the two techniques. Three dimensional echocardiography does not appear ready for routine clinical use in RV assessment in congenital heart disease patients with more than mild RV dilatation at the current time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".