MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345371879 · doi:10.1111/ajt.13839

Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Rule-Out Test for Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy

2016· article· en· W2345371879 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Chih, Heather J. Ross, Ana Carolina Alba, Chun‐Po Steve Fan, Cedric Manlhiot, Andrew Crean

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineIntravascular ultrasoundCutoffReceiver operating characteristicCardiologyPerfusionMagnetic resonance imagingLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingInternal medicineFractional flow reserveMyocardial perfusion imagingUltrasoundPerfusion scanningRadiologyCoronary angiographyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a leading cause of mortality after heart transplantation. Noninvasive imaging techniques used in CAV evaluation have important limitations. In a cross-sectional study, we investigated perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to determine an optimal myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPR) cutoff for detecting CAV using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We evaluated CMR performance using sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio analysis. We included 29 patients (mean 5 ± 4 years after transplant) scheduled for coronary angiography with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) who completed CMR. CAV was defined as maximal intimal thickness (MIT) >0.5 mm by IVUS of the left anterior descending artery. CAV was evident in 19 patients (70%) on IVUS (mean MIT 0.82 ± 0.42 mm). MPR was significantly lower in patients with MIT ≥0.50 mm (1.35 ± 0.23 vs. 1.71 ± 0.45, p = 0.013). There was moderate inverse correlation between MPR and MIT (r = −0.36, p = 0.075). The optimal MPR cutoff ≤1.68 for predicting CAV showed sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 63%, a negative predictive value of 100%, a positive predictive value of 86% and a positive likelihood ratio of 2.7. An MPR ≤1.68 has high negative predictive value, suggesting its potential as a test to rule out CAV. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a leading cause of mortality after heart transplantation. Noninvasive imaging techniques used in CAV evaluation have important limitations. In a cross-sectional study, we investigated perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to determine an optimal myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPR) cutoff for detecting CAV using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We evaluated CMR performance using sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio analysis. We included 29 patients (mean 5 ± 4 years after transplant) scheduled for coronary angiography with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) who completed CMR. CAV was defined as maximal intimal thickness (MIT) >0.5 mm by IVUS of the left anterior descending artery. CAV was evident in 19 patients (70%) on IVUS (mean MIT 0.82 ± 0.42 mm). MPR was significantly lower in patients with MIT ≥0.50 mm (1.35 ± 0.23 vs. 1.71 ± 0.45, p = 0.013). There was moderate inverse correlation between MPR and MIT (r = −0.36, p = 0.075). The optimal MPR cutoff ≤1.68 for predicting CAV showed sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 63%, a negative predictive value of 100%, a positive predictive value of 86% and a positive likelihood ratio of 2.7. An MPR ≤1.68 has high negative predictive value, suggesting its potential as a test to rule out CAV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207