MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316379252 · doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000250

Right Ventricular Imaging in 25 Seconds

2016· article· en· W2316379252 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Holger Haubenreisser, Thomas Henzler, Johannes Budjan, Sonja Sudarski, Michael O. Zenge, Michaela Schmidt, Mariappan S. Nadar, Martin Borggrefe, Stefan O. Schoenberg, Theano Papavassiliu

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Radiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingStroke volumeMedicineEjection fractionNuclear medicineCardiologyCardiac magnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineRadiologyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate a 2-dimensional real-time CINE TrueFISP magnetic resonance sequence using sparse data sampling with iterative reconstruction (SSIR) for right ventricular (RV) volumetry in comparison to the criterion standard (CS) acquired at 3 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy controls and 20 consecutive patients scheduled for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on a 3-T system (Magnetom Skyra; Siemens Healthcare Sector, Germany) underwent undersampled SSIR sequences with a single breath-hold (BH) as well as with shallow free breathing (NBH) and a fully sampled multi-BH sequence as CS. Right ventricular volumetry was performed with dedicated cardiac magnetic resonance software (cvi42; Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc, Calgary, Alberta, Canada). Agreement of SSIR with and without BH and CS for RV functional parameters (end-systolic volume [RVESV], end-diastolic volume [RVEDV], stroke volume [RVSV], and ejection fraction [RVEF]) were assessed with Bland-Altman analysis and paired t test. RESULTS: Analysis of the 30 individuals (19 male; 48 ± 14 years) revealed no significant differences when comparing CS and BH measurements for RVEDV (153.7 vs 153.6 mL, P = 0.96), RVESV (71.6 vs 72.1 mL, P = 0.78), RVSV (82.0 vs 81.6 mL, P = 0.65), and RVEF (54.9% vs 54.2%, P = 0.19). Similar results were shown when comparing CS and NBH measurements for RVEDV (153.7 vs 152.2 mL, P = 0.34), RVESV (71.6 vs 72.8 mL, P = 0.30), RVSV (82.0 vs 81.0 mL, P = 0.46), and RVEF (54.9 vs 54.4, P = 0.48). Time taken for acquisition was 350 seconds for the CS, 34 seconds for BH, and 25 seconds for NBH measurements. Additional time required for iterative reconstruction was 2 minutes and 30 seconds for the sparse sampled data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that accurate RV volumetry with SSIR data at 3 T is feasible in clinical routine within 25 seconds even without BH, which is of particular importance in patients with dyspnea.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative RadiologySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207