Model versus non-model based left ventricular volumetry - A matter of imaging modality or quantification software?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the modalities 3D-echocardiography (RT3DE) and cardiac magnetic resonance as well as semiautomatic non-model-based and model-based quantification software (SWP-MRI and SWT-MRI) regarding accuracy and agreement of left ventricular functional indices. Methods: 9 asymmetrically shaped gel phantoms (range: 20-350ml), 24 healthy children (age=11.4±3.3y) and 11 patients with abnormally shaped left ventricles (22.0±17.0y) were prospectively investigated. 3D-echocardiography was performed using a Vivid 7 ultrasound machine (V3 matrix transducer); postprocessing was done with a model-based analysis strategy (SWT-echo). CMR datasets were obtained using a multi-slice multi-phase steady‑state-free-precision acquisition (TR/TE/flip=2.8msecs/1.4msecs/60°) with a 1.5T MR system. Volume quantification was done using the same model-based software for CMR as well as non model-based software based on the summation of discs method. Agreement of EDV, ESV and EF between SWT-echo, SWP-mri vs. SWT-mri was determined by Bland Altman analysis. Results: Phantom study revealed high accuracy (<1%) for SWT-echo and SWP-mri as well as a moderate underestimation for SWT‑mri (13%). Agreement between SWP-mri and SWT-echo was superior in volunteers [mean; limits-of- agreement: EDV(5.3%; -20.1 to 30.8%), ESV(-1.3%; -41.6 to 38.9%), EF(4.0%; -12.0 to 19.9%)] with only slight underestimation by RT3DE in patients [EDV(11.5%; ‑18.5 to 41.4%), ESV(13.0%; -5.4 to 31.5%), EF(‑6.9%; -49.9 to 36.1%)]. Comparing SWT-echo with SWT-mri revealed volume underestimation of EDV (9.8; -20.5 to 40.0%) and overestimation of ESV (-9.6; -60.1 to 41.0%) in volunteers by SWT-mri resulting in underestimation of EF (12.6;-9.6 to 34.9). In patients minor differences between SWT-echo and SWT-mri were observed [EDV (0.6%; -28.2 to 29.4%), ESV (-2.4%; -38.2 to 33.4%), EF(9.3%; -35.7 to 54.3%)]. Compared to our reference SWP-mri both model-based techniques moderately underestimated EDV (SWT-MRI 12.1%; ‑2.1 to 26.4%, SWT-echo 11.5%; -18.5 to 41.4%) and ESV (SWT-mri 10.6%; -21.2 to 42.4%, SWT-echo 13.0%; -5.4 to 31.5%) resulting in quite precise EF(SWT-MRI 2.4%, -23.7 to 28.5%). Conclusion: Accuracy and reliability of left ventricular indices are excellent for RT3DE assessed by model based approach compared to non-model-based CMR approach in phantoms and healthy volunteers with minor volume underestimation in atypically shaped moving ventricles. Minor agreement was present if the model-based CMR software was used for determination of ventricular volumes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it