Patterns of CMR measured longitudinal strain and its association with late gadolinium enhancement in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and its mimics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regional variability of longitudinal strain (LS) has been previously described with echocardiography in patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA), however, the reason for this variability is not completely evident. We sought to describe regional patterns in LS using feature-tracking software applied to cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) cine images in patients with CA, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and Anderson-Fabry's disease (AFD) and to relate these patterns to the distribution of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). METHODS: Patients with CA (n = 45) were compared to LV mass indexed matched patients with HCM (n = 19) and AFD (n = 19). Peak systolic LS measurements were obtained using Velocity Vector Imaging (VVI) software on CMR cine images. A relative regional LS ratio (RRSR) was calculated as the ratio of the average of the apical segmental LS divided by the sum of the average basal and mid-ventricular segmental LS. LGE was quantified for the basal, mid, and apical segments using a threshold of 5SD above remote myocardium. A regional LGE ratio was calculated similar to RRSR. RESULTS: Patients with CA had significantly had worse global LS (-15.7 ± 4.6%) than those with HCM (-18.0 ± 4.6%, p = 0.046) and AFD (-21.9 ± 5.1%, p < 0.001). The RRSR was higher in patients with CA (1.00 ± 0.31) than in AFD (0.79 ± 0.24; p = 0.018) but not HCM (0.84 ± 0.32; p = 0.114). In CA, a regional difference in LGE burden was noted, with lower LGE in the apex (31.5 ± 19.1%) compared to the mid (38.2 ± 19.0%) and basal (53.7 ± 22.7%; p < 0.001 for both) segments. The regional LGE ratio was not significantly different between patients with CA (0.33 ± 0.15) and AFD (0.47 ± 0.58; p = 0.14) but lower compared to those with HCM (0.72 ± 0.43; p < 0.0001). LGE percentage showed a significant impact on LS (p < 0.0001), with a 0.9% decrease in absolute LS for every 10% increase in LGE percentage. CONCLUSION: The presence of marked "relative apical sparing" of LS along with a significant reduction in global LS seen in patients with CA on CMR cine analysis may provide an additional tool to differentiate CA from other cause of LVH. The concomitant presence of a base to apex gradient in quantitative LGE burden suggests that the regional strain gradient may be at least partially explained by the burden of amyloid deposition and fibrosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".