Transient Ischemic Dilatation during Stress Echocardiography: An Additional Marker of Significant Myocardial Ischemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Left ventricular (LV) transient ischemic dilatation (TID) is not clear how it relates to inducible myocardial ischemia during stress echocardiography (SE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-eight SEs were examined from the site certification phase of the ISCHEMIA Trial. LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) were measured at rest and peak stages and the percent change calculated. Moderate or greater ischemia was defined as ≥3 segments with stress-induced severe hypokinesis or akinesis. Optimum cut points in stress-induced percent EDV and ESV change that identified moderate or greater myocardial ischemia were analyzed. Analysis from percentage distribution identified a > 13% LV volume increase in EDV or a > 9% LV volume increase in ESV as the optimum cutoff points for moderate or greater ischemia. Using these definitions for TID, there were 27 (31%) with TIDESV and 12 (14%) with TIDEDV . By logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic curves, the percent change in ESV had a stronger association with moderate or greater myocardial ischemia than that of EDV change. Compared to those without TIDESV , cases with TIDESV had larger extent of inducible wall-motion abnormalities, lower peak stress LVEF, and higher likelihood of moderate or grater ischemia. For moderate or greater myocardial ischemia detection, TIDESV had a sensitivity of 46%, specificity of 83%, positive predictive value of 70%, and negative predictive value of 64%. CONCLUSION: Transient ischemic dilatation by SE is a marker of extensive myocardial ischemia and can be used as an additional marker of higher risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".