MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Differences in classification of left ventricular size measured by diameter and volume with contrast echocardiography

2013· article· en· W2326629625 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick H. Gibson, Harald Becher, Anna Maria Choy

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParasternal lineCardiologyInternal medicineBiplaneBody surface areaKappaDiastoleNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Left Ventricular (LV) size is commonly assessed at echocardiography by measurement of the End-Diastolic Diameter (EDD) in the parasternal long axis view. However, this has recognized limitations, and volumetric measurement from apical views is considered superior, particularly with the use of echocardiographic contrast to improve endocardial border definition. We sought to determine the agreement in classification of LV size by these different measures in a large population of patients undergoing clinically indicated echocardiography. Methods: Data were analyzed retrospectively from consecutive patients (n=2008, 61% male, age 62±13 years) who received echocardiographic contrast for LV opacification over 3 years in a single institution. Repeat studies were not included. LVEDD was measured, and LV End-Diastolic Volume (LVEDV) calculated using Simpson's biplane method. Both measures were indexed to body surface area (BSA) and categorized according to ASE guidelines as normal, mild, moderate or severely dilated. Results: There was a good overall correlation between LVEDD and LVEDV (Spearman's rho 0.74, p<0.001). However, when patients were categorized by indexed (i) LV diameter and volume there was poor agreement in classification (kappa = 0.200). Of 320 patients with severely dilated LVEDVi, only 43 were similarly classified by LVEDDi. Furthermore, 173 patients (54%) with a severely dilated LVEDVi had an LVEDDi in the normal range. Classification of LV size Conclusion: Agreement between different recommended measures of LV size is limited, even with significant LV dilation. The use of LVEDDi as the sole measure of ventricular size risks under-diagnosing or underestimating the degree of LV dilation. This has implications for reporting in circumstances where accurate assessment of LV size is important, such as timing of surgery in asymptomatic valve disease or classification of cardiomyopathy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→