Assessment of the precision and reproducibility of ventricular volume, function, and mass measurements with ferumoxytol‐enhanced 4D flow MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the precision and interobserver agreement of ventricular volume, function, and mass quantification by 3D time-resolved (4D) flow MRI relative to cine steady-state free precession (SSFP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Research Board approval, informed consent, and HIPAA compliance, 22 consecutive patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) (10 males, 6.4 ± 4.8 years) referred for 3T ferumoxytol-enhanced cardiac MRI were prospectively recruited. Complete ventricular coverage with standard 2D short-axis cine SSFP and whole chest coverage with axial 4D flow were obtained. Two blinded radiologists independently segmented images for left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) myocardium at end systole (ES) and end diastole (ED). Statistical analysis included linear regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Bland-Altman (BA) analysis, and intraclass correlation (ICC). RESULTS: Significant positive correlations were found between 4D flow and SSFP for ventricular volumes (r = 0.808-0.972, P < 0.001), ejection fraction (EF) (r = 0.900-928, P < 0.001), and mass (r = 0.884-0.934, P < 0.001). BA relative limits of agreement for both ventricles were between -52% to 34% for volumes, -29% to 27% for EF, and -41% to 48% for mass, with wider limits of agreement for the RV compared to the LV. There was no significant difference between techniques with respect to mean square difference of ED-ES mass for either LV (F = 2.05, P = 0.159) or RV (F = 0.625, P = 0.434). Interobserver agreement was moderate to good with both 4D flow (ICC 0.523-0.993) and SSFP (ICC 0.619-0.982), with overlapping confidence intervals. CONCLUSION: Quantification of ventricular volume, function, and mass can be accomplished with 4D flow MRI with precision and interobserver agreement comparable to that of cine SSFP. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:383-392.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".