MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three-Dimensional Echocardiography Compared With Computed Tomography to Determine Mitral Annulus Size Before Transcatheter Mitral Valve Implantation

2016· article· en· W2427021600 on OpenAlexaff
George Mak, Philipp Blanke, Kevin Ong, Christopher Naoum, Christopher Thompson, John G. Webb, Robert Moss, Robert Boone, Jian Ye, Anson Cheung, Brad Munt, Jonathon Leipsic, Jasmine Grewal

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitral annulusMitral valveCardiologyComputed tomographyRadiologyInternal medicineDiastole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previously, through the use of computed tomography (CT), it has been proposed that D-shaped versus saddle-shaped mitral annulus (MA) segmentation is more biomechanically appropriate to determine transcatheter mitral valve implantation size and eligibility. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-one patients with severe mitral regurgitation being considered for transcatheter mitral valve implantation who had undergone cardiac CT and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE) were retrospectively evaluated. A standardized segmentation protocol for the D-shaped MA was developed using Philips Q-Laboratory mitral valve quantification software. MA dimensions were compared using Spearman's rank correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. Mean age was 77±14 years; 71% male (n=29); mitral regurgitation pathogenesis was functional in 54% (n=22) and myxomatous in 46% (n=19). Mean MA area and circumference by 3D-TEE and CT were 11.3±2.7 versus 11.4±3.0 (P=0.67) and 124.1±15.6 versus 123.9±15.5 (P=0.79), respectively, with excellent correlation between modalities (r=0.84 and r=0.86; P<0.0001) and no systematic bias (-0.20±1.8 cm(2) [-3.7 cm(2); 3.3 cm(2)], 0.37±9 mm [-18.0 mm; 17.27 mm]). Mean septal-to-lateral and inter-trigone distances by 3D-TEE and CT were 33.2±4.7 versus 32.5±4.4 (P=0.24) and 31.7±3.5 versus 32.6±3.6 (P=0.06), respectively, with good correlation (r=0.69 and r=0.71; P<0.0001) and no systematic bias (0.77±3.8 mm [-6.7 mm; 8.2 mm], -1.5±3.1 mm [-4.6 mm; 7.6 mm]). There was excellent intra- and interobserver agreement according to intraclass correlation coefficients >0.90 for all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to cardiac CT, 3D-TEE allows for D-shaped MA segmentation with no systematic difference in MA dimensions between modalities. This study supports the utilization of 3D-TEE as a complementary tool to CT assessment of the D-shaped MA to determine transcatheter mitral valve implantation size.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.017
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations57
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207