Influence of Left Ventricular Geometry and Body-surface Area on Mitral Annulus Dimensions – Assessment by Computed Tomografy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zielsetzung: Mitral annular dimensions assessed by CT constitute essential information for planning of transcatheter mitral valve implantation. Normative data is limited, and the influence of gender, body-surface area (BSA) and cardiac chamber dimensions is unknown. We sought to establish normative data on mitral annular dimensions by CT and to investigate their predictors. Material und Methodik: CT data sets of 136 patients (mean age 58.3 ± 11.2 years) without known mitral valve disease who had undergone retrospectively ECG-gated cardiac CT to rule out coronary artery disease were assessed for mitral annular dimensions, left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end-systolic left atrial volume (LAV). In specific, mitral annular dimensions were obtained at end-diastole using semi-automated segmentation and comprised projected area, projected perimeter, septal-to-lateral (SL) distance and trigone-to-trigone (TT) distance. Importantly, the mitral annulus was defined by the TT-distance and the insertion of the posterior mitral leaflet (PML) thereby excluding the intervalvular fibrosa. Ergebnisse: Mean mitral annular area was 9.1 ± 1.6cm2. Mean TT- distance and the mean SL-distance were 27.8 ± 3.2 mm and 28.3 ± 3.0 mm. The mean 2D projected perimeter of the PML insertion was 82.3 ± 8.0 mm. Wide inter-subject variability was noted in all parameters which showed normal distribution. Annular area exhibited a significant (p < 0.001) and positive correlation with BSA (r = 0.60), LVA (r = 0.57) and LVEDV (r = 0.74). According to the multiple linear regression model, male gender (standardized β 0.19, p = 0.004), higher BSA (β 0.43,p < 0.01), higher left atrial volume (β 0.005, p = 0.01) and higher end-diastolic volume (β 0.04, p = 0.01) were independently associated with a larger mitral annular area (adjusted r2 = 0.65). Schlussfolgerungen: Mitral annular dimensions determined by cardiac CT exhibit a wide inter-subject variability. Gender, BSA, left atrial and ventricular volume are independent predictors of mitral annular dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".