Three-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography for the evaluation of segmental myocardial deformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Although the feasibility of three-dimensional (3D) speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) for the evaluation of myocardial function has been demonstrated, the poor reproducibility of strain measurements obtained with 3D STE as compared to two-dimensional (2D) STE has been controversially discussed. Aim of this study was to demonstrate the benefit of longitudinal strain analysis by 3D STE as compared to the established 2D STE techniques. Methods : 2D and 3D STE was performed in 30 volunteers with normal systolic left ventricular (LV) function using cardiac ultrasound systems from two different vendors (Vivid E9 and iE33 xMATRIX). Global and segmental longi - tudinal strain (GLS, SLS) values were analyzed for 2D STE using respective software packages (Vivid E9: EchoPAC AFI; iE33 xMATRIX: QLAB CMQ 9.0). Measurements for 3D STE were performed using specific software for Vivid E9 (EchoPAC 4DAutoLVQ) and unspecific software for iE33 xMATRIX (TomTec Imaging Systems 4D left ventricular Analysis). Intra-, interobserver and test-retest variability as well as times for acquisition and analysis were compared between 2D and 3D STE techniques. Results : The reliability of SLS measurements using 3D STE was non-inferior to the measurements obtained by 2D STE, with perpetual constant results in all tests (ICC SLS 3D 0.78 – 0.94 vs . SLS 2D 0.73 – 0.93). Agreements between SLS values were better when vendor specific 2D and 3D software was applied. GLS measurements showed inhomogeneous results for both techniques (ICC GLS 3D 0.40 – 0.93 vs . GLS 2D 0.13 – 0.91). Acquisition time was significantly shorter for 3D datasets than for 2D datasets (3D 51.0 ± 10.66 sec vs . 2D 91.0 ± 10.9 sec, p < .01). Conclusion : 3D STE is a time-saving technology for the evaluation of myocardial deformation in daily clinical practice, generating results that are comparable to the conventional 2D STE techniques. SLS obtained by 3D STE seems to be a more robust parameter than GLS for the assessment of myocardial deformation, especially when vendor specific software packages are used.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".