MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131426793 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2361031699

True versus False Left Ventricular Aneurysm: Differentiation with MR Imaging—Initial Experience

2005· article· en· W2131426793 on OpenAlexaff
Eli Konen, Naeem Merchant, Carlos Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, Yves Provost, Linda Mickleborough, Narinder Paul, Jagdish Butany

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAneurysmEjection fractionCardiologyMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineLeft Ventricular AneurysmVentricular aneurysmMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the usefulness of cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for differentiation of true from false left ventricular aneurysm in patients after myocardial infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cardiac MR images obtained in 22 sequential patients (20 men, two women; mean age, 63 years; age range, 45-75 years) with pathologically proved left ventricular true aneurysm (n = 18) or false aneurysm (n = 4) after myocardial infarction were retrospectively analyzed. The MR imaging protocol included steady-state cine imaging followed by perfusion measurement and delayed contrast-enhanced imaging with delays of 15 and 20 minutes. Differences between true and false aneurysms with regard to maximal internal width of orifice, maximal parallel internal diameter, ratio of maximal orifice to maximal internal diameter, presence of mural thrombus and delayed enhancement of pericardium, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, and left ventricular ejection fraction were analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Inferior wall location was noted in two of four patients with false aneurysm and in none of 18 patients with true aneurysm (P = .03). The remaining aneurysms were apicoanterior (two false, 10 true) or apical (eight true). False aneurysms had a ratio of maximal internal width of the orifice to maximal parallel internal diameter that was significantly lower than that of true aneurysms (0.73 vs 1.00, P < .001) and had a significantly higher left ventricular end-diastolic volume (median, 202 vs 136 mL/m(2); P = .001), as well as a nonsignificant tendency toward lower left ventricular ejection fraction (17% vs 28%, P = .15). Mural thrombus was identified in all four patients with false aneurysm and in seven of 18 patients with true aneurysm (P = .09). Delayed enhancement of pericardium was noted in all four patients with false aneurysm and in three of 18 patients with true aneurysm. Resultant sensitivity of MR imaging for the detection of false left ventricular aneurysm was four of four, specificity was 15 of 18, accuracy was 19 of 22, and positive and negative predictive values were four of seven and 15 of 15 patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Initial experience with a small number of patients suggests that marked delayed enhancement of the pericardium is a characteristic feature of false aneurysm. Study with a larger patient sample is required to further assess this feature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations156
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairFrench-language works237,207