MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143966805 · doi:10.1093/ejechocard/jer278

Echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular volumes: a comparison of different techniques in children after surgical repair of tetralogy of Fallot

2011· article· en· W2143966805 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetralogy of FallotMedicineReproducibilityEjection fractionVentricular volumeNuclear medicineBland–Altman plotMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyStroke volumeInternal medicineRadiologyLimits of agreementHeart failureHeart diseaseMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Different echocardiographic techniques are available for assessing right ventricular (RV) volumes but their clinical validity has not been well established. We compared the feasibility, reproducibility and accuracy of three different echocardiographic techniques for measuring RV volumes and ejection fraction (EF) in children after tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy patients (age 14.2 ± 7.3 years) were studied using three-dimensional (3D) volume acquisition analysis (Tomtec, Germany), 2D echo with knowledge-based 3D reconstruction (3DR) (Ventripoint, USA) and the four-chamber area (4C area) methods. Parameters analysed were RV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume and EF. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data were available in 41 patients. Intra- and inter-observer as well as inter-technique variability was assessed using Pearson's correlation analysis (R), coefficient of variance, and Bland-Altman analysis. Feasibility was good for all echo techniques (91% for the 3D, 98% for the 3DR, and 100% for the 4C area method). Intra- and inter-observer variability was low for both 3DR and the 3D echo, while more variability was observed for the 4C method. Compared with MRI volumes, 3DR and 3D underestimated EDV by 6.6 ± 10 and 18.2 ± 17.8 mL, respectively, (P < 0.001), while the 4C area method overestimated the EDV by 9.6 ± 33 mL, not significant due to a wide range. CONCLUSION: Current echocardiographic techniques to assess RV volumes are highly feasible and reproducible in paediatric post-operative TOF patients. When compared with MRI measurements, 3DR was the most accurate technique but requires extra equipment that is not readily available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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