Left ventricular function and regional strain with subtly‐tagged steady‐state free precession feature tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide regional strain and ventricular volume from a single acquisition, using subtly tagged steady-state free precession (SubTag SSFP) feature tracking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effects on regional strain of tag strength in gradient recalled echo (GRE) tagging, flip angle in untagged balanced SSFP, and both in SubTag SSFP were examined in the mid left ventricle of 15 healthy volunteers at 3T. Optimal parameters were determined from varying both tag strength and SSFP flip angle using full tag saturation GRE as the reference standard. SubTag SSFP was acquired in 15 additional healthy volunteers for whole-heart volume and strain assessment using the optimized parameters. Values measured by two image analysts were compared to clinical reference standards from untagged SSFP (volumes) and GRE tagging (strains). RESULTS: Regional strain accuracy was maintained with decreasing total tagging flip angle (β); less than 3% differences for β ≥ 26°. For untagged SSFP flip angle (α), whole-wall strain differences became statistically significant when α < 40°. A SubTag SSFP acquisition with α = 40° and β = 46° showed the best combination of tagging strength, blood-myocardial contrast, and tag persistence at end-systole for regional strain estimation. SubTag SSFP also showed excellent agreement with untagged SSFP for volumetrics (percent difference: end-diastolic volume = 0.6%, end-systolic volume = 0.4%, stroke volume = 1.2%, ejection fraction = 0.6%, mass = 1.1%). CONCLUSION: Feature tracking for regional myocardial strain assessment is dependent on image features, mainly the tag strength, persistence, and image contrast. SubTag SSFP balances these criteria to provide accurate regional strain and volumetric assessment in a single acquisition. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:787-797.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".