MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809748314 · doi:10.1093/europace/euy142

Cardiac computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging vs. transoesophageal echocardiography for diagnosing left atrial appendage thrombi

2018· review· en· W2809748314 on OpenAlex
Tasnim Vira, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Kim A. Connelly, Harindra C. Wijeysundera, Idan Roifman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenHealth Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersSunnybrook Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingConfidence intervalCardiac imagingRadiologyCardiac magnetic resonance imagingAtrial AppendageCardiologyGold standard (test)Nuclear medicineInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) is the gold standard for identification of left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombi. However, TOE is semi-invasive and cannot be performed in certain patients. Left atrial appendage thrombi can also be identified by cardiac computed tomography (CCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR); however, the diagnostic performance of these techniques vs. TOE is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 CCT and 4 CMR studies comparing diagnostic performance to TOE for identification of LAA thrombi. Meta-regression was performed to determine whether expected sensitivity and specificity differed between early and delayed image acquisition protocols for CCT vs. TOE and between CCT and CMR. Cardiac computed tomography demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 0.99 [confidence interval (CI 0.93-1.00)] and 0.94 (CI 0.90-0.97) respectively vs. TOE. A subgroup analysis comparing early vs. delayed protocol CCT imaging was performed showing no significant differences in sensitivity (P-value = 0.17) however improved specificity of the delayed imaging protocols (P-value = 0.04). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 0.80 (CI 0.63-0.91) and 0.98 (CI 0.97-0.99), respectively when compared to TOE. There was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity between CMR and CCT (P-values 0.996 and 0.484, respectively). CONCLUSION: Cardiac computed tomography and CMR had good to excellent sensitivity and specificity vs. TOE. Further, there was no significant difference in the sensitivity and specificity of CCT vs. CMR, suggesting that both modalities can be considered reasonable alternatives to TOE in the identification of LAA thrombi. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may be especially beneficial when TOE and CCT cannot be performed.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.291 · 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