MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

11 Left ventricular end diastolic filling pressure predicted by left atrial strain measured by feature tracking

2016· article· en· W2340505472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
JRJ Foley, Pankaj Garg, TA Musa, LE Dobson, Peter Swoboda, G. Fent, Philip Haaf, Sven Plein, JP Greenwood

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreloadMedicineFeature trackingCardiologyInternal medicineDiastoleSinus rhythmAtrial fibrillationBlood pressureHemodynamicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Left ventricular end-diastolic filling pressure (LVEDP) is an invasive measure of LV function obtained at cardiac catheterisation (CC) that predicts prognosis and guides therapeutic strategy. Echocardiographic E/E’ ratio has been shown to be inaccurate for estimation of LVEDP. Feature-tracking cardiovascular magnetic resonance (FT-CMR) is a novel method for quantification of myocardial deformation and can be used to quantitatively assess left atrial (LA) function. Currently there is no validated MRI parameter that estimates LVEDP. We hypothesised that LA strain correlates to LVEDP. <h3>Methods</h3> 14 patients in sinus rhythm, with severe AS underwent a 1.5T CMR protocol (Ingenia, Phillips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands). LVEDP was recorded at the time of CC by standard techniques. 4 chamber and mid ventricular short axis steady state free procession cine images were obtained: LA endocardial and epicardial borders were traced manually on the end-diastolic slice and strain measurements were calculated using commercially available post-processing software (CVI42, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Calgary, Alberta, Canada). <h3>Results</h3> Patients were divided into 2 groups: low EDP (13 ± 2.4mmHg) and high EDP (36.1 ± 3.4mmHg) (p &lt; 0.01). Both &nbsp;groups were evenly matched for baseline demographics (Table 1). Peak atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) was significantly different between low EDP and high EDP group (−21.7 ± 8.5 versus −11.1 ± 2.1% p = 0.01) (Figure 1). In multivariable analysis of demographics and CMR parameters PALS was the only determinant of LVEDP independent of other factors (Beta −0.93 p = 0.01). There was a moderate negative correlation between increasing invasive LVEDP and PALS (Pearson’s correlation coefficient −0.647, p = 0.009). <h3>Conclusion</h3> LA function (PALS) as measured by FT-CMR is independently associated with LVEDP and may have a role in predicting LV filling pressures via a routine CMR protocol.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207