Discrepant Measurements of Maximal Left Ventricular Wall Thickness Between Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Echocardiography in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to compare maximal left ventricular (LV) wall thickness (WT) measurements as obtained by routine clinical practice between echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and document causes of discrepancy. METHODS AND RESULTS: One-hundred and ninety-five patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (median age, 52.8±15.1 years) who underwent echocardiography and CMR imaging within 6 months (median, 41 days; interquartile range, 16-97 days) were included. LVWT was assessed in parasternal long and short axis by 2-dimensional echocardiography and in short axis by CMR. By Bland-Altman plot, mean maximal LVWT difference between echocardiography and CMR was 0.5 mm (95% confidence interval, -6.9, 7.8) with equal distribution of discrepancy along the full range of LVWT. Ninety-seven patients (49.7%) were identified to have intermodal measurement discrepancies ≥10%. In 7 patients (7.2%), reported measurement by CMR was inaccurate because of interpretation error. In 90 patients (92.8%), echocardiography underestimated (n=32; 33.0%) or overestimated (n=58; 59.8%) maximal LVWT. Underestimation was because of focal LV hypertrophy (n=10; 10.3%) or poor acoustic windows (n=22; 22.7%) while overestimation resulted from inclusion of right ventricular myocardium (n=37; 38.1%), LV trabeculations (n=5; 5.2%), papillary muscle (n=3; 3.1%), and apical-septal bundle (n=1; 1.0%), as well as imaging plane obliquity (n=7; 12.5%). In 31 (15.9%) patients, measurement discrepancy occurred at diagnostic or prognostic cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: Although maximal LVWT by echocardiography in general measured similar to CMR, discordance because of limitations in echocardiography technique was present in a significant subset of patients. As measurement of LVWT impacts diagnosis and sudden death management, CMR should be considered as part of routine evaluation of all patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".