MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800694860 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172613

Use of Myocardial T1 Mapping at 3.0 T to Differentiate Anderson-Fabry Disease from Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

2018· article· en· W2800694860 on OpenAlexafffund
Gauri Rani Karur, Sean Robison, Robert M. Iwanochko, Chantal F. Morel, Andrew Crean, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Elsie T. Nguyen, Shobhit Mathur, Syed Wasim, Kate Hanneman

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRSNA Research and Education Foundation
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyReceiver operating characteristicCardiologyConfidence intervalInternal medicineFabry diseaseOdds ratioLogistic regressionMagnetic resonance imagingCardiomyopathyCutoffNuclear medicineRadiologyHeart failureDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To compare left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) 3.0-T cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging T1 values in Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and evaluate the diagnostic value of native T1 values beyond age, sex, and conventional imaging features. Materials and Methods For this prospective study, 30 patients with gene-positive AFD (37% male; mean age ± standard deviation, 45.0 years ± 14.1) and 30 patients with HCM (57% male; mean age, 49.3 years ± 13.5) were prospectively recruited between June 2016 and September 2017 to undergo cardiac MR imaging T1 mapping with a modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) acquisition scheme at 3.0 T (repetition time msec/echo time msec, 280/1.12; section thickness, 8 mm). LV and RV T1 values were evaluated. Statistical analysis included independent samples t test, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, multivariable logistic regression, and likelihood ratio test. Results Septal LV, global LV, and RV native T1 values were significantly lower in AFD compared with those in HCM (1161 msec ± 47 vs 1296 msec ± 55, respectively [P < .001]; 1192 msec ± 52 vs 1268 msec ± 55 [P < .001]; and 1221 msec ± 54 vs 1271 msec ± 37 [P = .001], respectively). A septal LV native T1 cutoff point of 1220 msec or lower distinguished AFD from HCM with sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 93%, and accuracy of 95%. Septal LV native T1 values differentiated AFD from HCM after adjustment for age, sex, and conventional imaging features (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.91, 0.98; P = < .001). In a nested logistic regression model with age, sex, and conventional imaging features, model fit was significantly improved by the addition of septal LV native T1 values (χ2 [df = 1] = 33.4; P < .001). Conclusion Cardiac MR imaging native T1 values at 3.0 T are significantly lower in patients with AFD compared with those with HCM and provide independent and incremental diagnostic value beyond age, sex, and conventional imaging features. © RSNA, 2018

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations81
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207