MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808375327 · doi:10.1002/jmri.26160

Effects of age, gender, and risk‐factors for heart failure on native myocardial T<sub>1</sub> and extracellular volume fraction using the SASHA sequence at 1.5T

2018· article· en· W2808375327 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph J. Pagano, Kelvin Chow, D. Ian Paterson, Yoko Mikami, Anna Schmidt, Andrew G. Howarth, James A. White, Matthias G. Friedrich, Gavin Y. Oudit, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Jason R.B. Dyck, Richard B. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyRisk factorFramingham Risk ScorePopulationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Understanding cardiac MR T1 mapping values might require examination of the effects of age, gender, and heart failure risk factors. Purpose/Hypothesis To evaluate the effects of gender, age, and presence of heart failure risk factors on myocardial native T1 and extracellular volume fraction (ECV). Study Type Retrospective, cross‐sectional, observational study. Population Secondary analysis of cardiac MR data, separated by gender and health status, based on the presence of at least one heart failure risk factor. Field Strength/Sequence Cardiac MR imaging at 1.5T, including T1 mapping using the SAturation recovery single‐SHot Acquisition (SASHA) sequence. Assessment Interventricular septal region‐of‐interest analysis for assessment of native T1 and ECV. Statistical Tests Group comparisons performed using Student t‐test, or nonparametric equivalent. Linear regression was used to assess relationships between age and T1 measurements. Results Native T1 and ECV were available in 187 and 143 subjects, respectively. T1 and ECV were independent of age in all groups (Native T1: healthy women P = 0.655; healthy men P = 0.906; at‐risk women P = 0.487; at‐risk men P = 0.683; ECV: healthy women P = 0.685; healthy men P = 0.199; at‐risk women P = 0.152; at‐risk men P = 0.747). T1 and ECV were higher in healthy women versus men (1202 ± 30 ms versus 1167 ± 36 ms, P = 0.0000 and 22 ± 2% versus 20 ± 2%, P = 0.0089), while values were similar in women and men with risk factors (1197 ± 55 ms versus 1193 ± 45 ms, P = 0.6556, 21 ± 2% versus 21 ± 3%, P = 0.5039). No differences existed in native T1 or ECV between women with or without risk factors (P = 0.6344 and P = 0.1026), whereas men with risk factors showed higher native T1 values (P = 0.0070). Data Conclusion Native T1 and ECV measured with SASHA do not vary with age, regardless of gender or the presence of factors for heart failure. Native T1 and ECV are higher in healthy women than men, but do not differ in the presence of risk factors, suggesting a different myocardial response to risk factors between genders. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1307–1317.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207