Evaluation of diastolic function by three-dimensional volume tracking of the mitral annulus with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comparison with tissue Doppler imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of mitral annulus (MA) dynamics is an important component of the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function; MA velocities are commonly measured using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI). This study aimed to examine the clinical potential of a semi-automated cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technique for quantifying global LV diastolic function, using 3D volume tracking of the MA with conventional cine-CMR images. METHODS: 124 consecutive patients with normal ejection fraction underwent both clinically indicated transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and CMR within 2 months. Interpolated 3D reconstruction of the MA over time was performed with semi-automated atrioventricular junction (AVJ) tracking in long-axis cine-CMR images, producing an MA sweep volume over the cardiac cycle. CMR-based diastolic function was evaluated, using the following parameters: peak volume sweep rates in early diastole (PSRE) and atrial systole (PSRA), PSRE/PSRA ratio, deceleration time of sweep volume (DTSV), and 50% diastolic sweep volume recovery time (DSVRT50); these were compared with TTE diastolic measurements. RESULTS: Patients with TTE-based diastolic dysfunction (n = 62) showed significantly different normalized MA sweep volume profiles compared to those with TTE-based normal diastolic function (n = 62), including a lower PSRE (5.25 ± 1.38 s-1 vs. 7.72 ± 1.7 s-1), a higher PSRA (6.56 ± 1.99 s-1 vs. 4.67 ± 1.38 s-1), a lower PSRE/PSRA ratio (0.9 ± 0.44 vs. 1.82 ± 0.69), a longer DTSV (144 ± 55 ms vs. 96 ± 37 ms), and a longer DSVRT50 (25.0 ± 11.0% vs. 15.6 ± 4.0%) (all p < 0.05). CMR diastolic parameters were independent predictors of TTE-based diastolic dysfunction after adjusting for left ventricular hypertrophy, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. Good correlations were observed between CMR PSRE/PSRA and early-to-late diastolic annular velocity ratios (e'/a') measured by TDI (r = 0.756 to 0.828, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: 3D MA sweep volumes generated by semi-automated AVJ tracking in routinely acquired CMR images yielded diastolic parameters that were effective in identifying patients with diastolic dysfunction when correlated with TTE-based variables.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".