MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521810654 · doi:10.1186/s12968-016-0282-x

Effects of slice orientation on reproducibility of sequential assessment of right ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: short-axis vs transverse SSFP cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance

2016· article· en· W2521810654 on OpenAlexaff
Luigia D’Errico, M. Lamacie, Laura Jimenez Juan, Djeven P. Deva, Rachel M. Wald, Sebastian Ley, Kate Hanneman, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Bernd J. Wintersperger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproducibilitySteady-state free precession imagingMedicineOrientation (vector space)Magnetic resonance imagingTransverse planeNuclear medicineEjection fractionShort axisBland–Altman plotAngiologyLong axisCardiac magnetic resonance imagingCoefficient of variationNuclear magnetic resonanceLimits of agreementCardiologyInternal medicineRadiologyHeart failureMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Test-retest reproducibility is of utmost importance in follow-up of right ventricular (RV) volumes and function; optimal slice orientation though is not yet known. We compared test-retest reproducibility and intra-/inter-observer variability of right ventricular (RV) volumes and function assessed with short-axis and transverse cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). METHODS: Eighteen volunteers underwent cine CMR for RV assessment obtaining ventricular coverage in short-axis and transverse slice orientation. Additional 2D phase contrast flow imaging of the main pulmonary artery (MPA) was performed. After complete repositioning repeat acquisitions were performed. Data sets were contoured by two blinded observers. Statistical analysis included Student's t-test, Bland-Altman plots, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and 2-way ANOVA, SEM and minimal detectable difference calculations. RESULTS: Heart rates (65.0 ± 7.4 vs. 67.6 ± 9.9 bpm; P = 0.1) and MPA flow (89.8 ± 16.6 vs. 87.2 ± 14.9 mL; P = 0.1) did not differ between imaging sessions. EDV and ESV demonstrated an inter-study bias of 0.4 %[-9.5 %,10.3 %] and 2.1 %[-12.3 %,16.4 %] for short-axis and 1.1 %[-7.3 %,9.4 %] and 0.8 %[-16.0 %,17.6 %] for transverse orientation, respectively. There was no significant interaction between imaging orientation and interstudy reproducibility (p = 0.395-0.824), intra-observer variability (p = 0.726-0.862) or inter-observer variability (p = 0.447-0.706) by 2-way ANOVA. Inter-observer agreement by ICC was greater for short axis versus transverse orientation for all parameters (0.769-0.986 vs. 0.625-0.983, respectively). Minimal detectable differences for short axis and transverse orientations were 10.1 mL/11.5 mL for EDV, 8.3 mL/8.4 mL for ESV and 4.1 % vs. 4.7 % for EF, respectively. CONCLUSION: Short-axis and transverse orientation both provide reliable and reproducible measures for follow-up of RV volumes and global function. Therefore, additional transverse SSFP cine CMR may not necessarily be required if performed for the sole purpose of quantitative volumetric RV assessment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207