Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There is much evidence-based research proving the effectiveness of contrast echocardiography, but there are still questions and concerns about its specific uses. This study tested the effectiveness of contrast echocardiography in defining the left ventricular endocardial border. Methods From 30 patients, a total of 60 echocardiograms –– 30 with and 30 without use of contrast –– were retrospectively reviewed by four blinded cardiologists with advanced training in echocardiography. No single cardiologist reviewed contrast and noncontrast images of the same patient. Each set of 30 echocardiograms was then studied for wall-motion scoring. Visualization of left ventricular wall segments and a global visualization confidence level of interpretation were recorded. Results Of all wall segments (N = 510), 91% were visualized in echocardiograms with use of contrast, whereas 75% of the walls were visualized in echocardiograms without contrast (P < 0.001). Of 30 examinations, 17 contrast echocardiograms were read with high confidence compared to 6 without contrast use (P = 0.004). The number of walls visualized with contrast was increased in 18 patients (60%), whereas noncontrast echocardiograms yielded more visualized walls in 6 patients (20%, P = 0.002). Conclusions This study demonstrates that contrast is valuable to echocardiographic imaging. Its use should be supported throughout echocardiography clinics and encouraged in certain patients for whom resting and stress echocardiography results without contrast often prove uninterpretable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".