Correlation and agreement between 2D and 3D speckle‐tracking echocardiography for left ventricular volumetric, strain, and rotational parameters in healthy volunteers and in patients with mild mitral stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent advances had allowed measurement of myocardial deformation parameters using 3D speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). Agreement between these two modalities and interchangeability of findings remain as an issue since 2DSTE is more widely available than 3DSTE. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation and agreement between 2DSTE and 3DSTE in healthy volunteers and in patients with mild mitral stenosis (MS). METHODS: Data from 31 patients with mild MS and 27 healthy volunteers were included in this study. Data were analyzed for the correlation and agreement between 2DSTE and 3DSTE for volumetric, strain, and rotational parameters. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between 2DSTE and 3DSTE in both control and MS groups for left ventricular volumetric and rotational parameters. 3D global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) were significantly higher in healthy volunteers (P < 0.001 for both), while only 3DGCS was significantly higher than 2DGCS in MS group (P < 0.001). The correlation between 3DSTE and 2DSTE was weak-to-moderate in both groups for strain and rotational parameters, and overall, correlation coefficients were higher in MS group. An exception was GLS in MS group, where coefficient of correlation was excellent (r = 0.907). Agreement between two modalities was poor for strain and rotational parameters, and the average bias was high. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the agreement between 2DSTE and 3DSTE for strain and rotational measures was poor with a high average bias. The agreement between 2DSTE and 3DSTE is affected by the presence of underlying MS and the direction of strain.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".