MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Cardiac AL Amyloidosis - An Analysis of "Presumed" and "Endomyocardial Biopsy-Proven" Disease.

2005· article· en· W2589202283 on OpenAlexaff
Christine I. Chen, Diego Delgado, Laveena Munshi, Adriana Luk, Andrew Winter, Heather J. Ross, A. Keith Stewart, Joseph Mıkhael, Suzanne Trudel, Donna Reece

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac amyloidosisAmyloidosisInternal medicineBiopsyAmyloid (mycology)PathologyAL amyloidosisCreatinineAmyloid diseaseCardiologyGastroenterologyDiseaseImmunoglobulin light chainAmyloid fibrilImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The gold standard for diagnosis of cardiac involvement in systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is the identification of Congo red amyloid infiltrates on endomyocardial biopsy. As this procedure is invasive, inconvenient, and expensive, the combination of clinical cardiac findings and standard 2D echocardiography (echo) is typically used as a surrogate approach. We sought to evaluate this approach by reviewing clinical and echo parameters in systemic AL amyloid pts with endomyocardial biopsy-proven involvement in comparison to pts with presumed cardiac involvement (echo abnormalities) and those with no clinical or echo findings of cardiac involvement. Methods: A retrospective chart review of AL amyloid pts referred to either the cardiology or myeloma services at our institution between 1996 and 2005 was performed. Ninety-six pts with available clinical and echo data were identified: 13 with endomyocardial biopsy-proven AL amyloid (group 1); 55 with systemic AL amyloid (histologically-proven on non-cardiac biopsy) and “presumed” cardiac disease with echo abnormalities (group 2); 28 with systemic AL amyloid without cardiac disease (no clinical cardiac findings or echo abnormalities)(group 3). Results: There were no differences between the 3 groups in the following demographic and laboratory parameters: age, gender, lab (Hb, platelets, PT/PTT, albumin, ALP, total bilirubin, creatinine, LDH), and light chain subtype. Clinically, groups 1 and 2 (both confirmed and presumed cardiac amyloid) were similar with more frequent multiorgan involvement (>2 organs: 69% group 1;71% group 2;14% group 3; p=0.0009) and presence of liver disease (31% group 1, 51% group 2; 3.5% group 3; p=0.038) than group 3. This may reflect multiorgan impairment resulting from nonspecific cardiac dysfunction. Although frequency of GI and neurologic involvement were similar in all groups, group 1 had less renal involvement (38%) vs group 2 (69%) and group 3 (60%); p=0.059. In particular, nephrotic range proteinuria was significantly less frequent in group 1 (7.6%) vs group 2 (49%) and group 3 (53%); p=0.0035. Echocardiograms performed in both confirmed (group 1) and presumed cardiac amyloid patients (group 2) showed classic findings of infiltrative cardiomyopathy: increased posterior wall thickness, IVS, LV mass, LV mass index, LV end diastolic dimension, E/A ratio (results not present in group 3). When group 1 was compared to group 2, significant differences in ejection fraction (mean 48% vs 58%; p=0.0087) remained. Contrary to the literature, OS from diagnosis did not differ between cardiac or non-cardiac groups. Conclusions: Differences in clinical and echocardiographic parameters exist between patients with histologically confirmed cardiac amyloid and those presumed to have cardiac involvement by echo. This suggests that the reliance upon echo in the diagnosis of cardiac involvement is faulty and despite the risks and inconvenience, endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis remains the gold standard. At our centre, we routinely perform endomyocardial biopsies (with electron microscopy) and right heart catheterization on all referred systemic AL amyloid patients with a set panel of investigations including 2D echo, cardiac MRI, serum BNP and troponins. This approach will enable us to better evaluate these surrogate diagnostic tools against the gold standard.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, OutcomesFrench-language works237,207