MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P1075Benefit of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging tissue characterization in risk profiling patients with suspected myocarditis

2017· article· en· W2761164637 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C Graeni, Christian Eichhorn, Loïc Bière, Vikas Agarwal, Kensuke Kaneko, Venkatesh L. Murthy, M. Steigner, Ron Blankstein, M. Jerosch-Herold, Ry Kwong

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Immunology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitetet i BergenFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaAustralian Catholic University
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMyocarditisCardiac magnetic resonanceCardiac magnetic resonance imagingRadiologyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Diagnosis and prognostication of patients with possible myocarditis are challenging given the non-specificity of clinical signs and symptoms. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has become a key investigative tool in such presentations, but the prognostic implications of CMR remains unclear. Objectives: Event-free survival analyses of a large patient cohort who presented with suspected myocarditis who underwent CMR. Methods: 670 Patients with clinically suspected myocarditis were included. CMR findings including the presence and extent of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause death, heart failure, heart transplantation, documented sustained ventricular arrhythmia, or recurrent myocarditis. Results: At a median follow-up of 4.7 [interquartile-range (IQR) 2.3–7.3] years, 98 patients experienced a MACE. 294 (44%) patients presented with LGE on CMR. LGE presence was associated with a more than 2-fold increase in risk of MACE (HR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.47–3.35; p<0.001). Each percentage increase in LGE extent was associated with a 6% increase in risk of MACE (HR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.06, p=0.001). Annualized event rates of MACE with regards to presence or absence of LGE were 4.8% versus 2.1% (p<0.001). Midwall LGE involvement was associated with a HR of 2.39 (95% CI: 1.54–3.69; p<0.001) with MACE, but not epicardial LGE involvement (p=0.291). Strongest association was observed in septal LGE involvement (HR 2.55, 95% CI: 1.77–3.83; p<0.001), whereas lateral involvement was not associated with MACE (p=0.145).

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicViral Infections and Immunology Research→French-language works237,207→