Assessment of Systemic Right Ventricular Function in Patients With Transposition of the Great Arteries Using the Myocardial Performance Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of systemic right ventricular (RV) function is a key point in the follow-up of patients with transposition of the great arteries (TGA). Current echocardiographic assessment of RV function is at best an estimate, and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered the gold standard. However, this technique is expensive, has limited availability, and requires significant expertise to acquire and interpret the images. The myocardial performance index (MPI) has recently been studied for assessment of pulmonary RV function and shows promise as a simple yet powerful tool for assessing patients with RV dysfunction of various origins. We set out to compare MPI and CMR assessment of systemic RV function in patients with TGA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from patients with TGA (11 with congenitally corrected TGA, 18 with surgically corrected TGA) who had CMR within 6 months of their echocardiogram were reviewed. The average systemic RV ejection fraction (RVEF) by CMR was 39.4+/-11.4%, and the systemic RVMPI for this group was 0.56+/-0.21. There was a strong negative correlation between the systemic RVMPI and systemic RVEF by CMR (r=-0.82, P<0.01). The systemic RVEF can be estimated from this formula: RVEF=65%-(45.2xMPI). CONCLUSIONS: MPI can be used in patients with systemic RVs to assess global function and to estimate an EF with good accuracy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".