MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995807121 · doi:10.1148/ryct.2019190034

Left Ventricular Mid-Diastolic Wall Thickness: Normal Values for Coronary CT Angiography

2019· article· en· W2995807121 on OpenAlex
Jeroen Walpot, Daniel Juneau, Samia Massalha, Girish Dwivedi, Frank J. Rybicki, Benjamin Chow, João R. Inácio

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology Cardiothoracic Imaging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiastoleCardiologyCoronary angiographyBasal (medicine)Internal medicineAngiographyProspective cohort studyNuclear medicineBlood pressureMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To generate normal reference values for left ventricular mid-diastolic wall thickness (LV-MDWT) measured by using CT angiography. Materials and Methods LV-MDWT was measured in 2383 consecutive patients, without structural heart disease, undergoing prospective electrocardiographically (ECG) triggered mid-diastolic coronary CT angiography. LV-MDWT was manually measured on automatically segmented short-axis images according to the American Heart Association’s 17-segment model. Commercially available automatic software was used to calculate the left ventricular (LV) mass. Results Among the 2383 patients, average LV-MDWT was 7.24 mm ± 1.86 (standard deviation [SD]), with the basal anteroseptal segment being the thickest wall (8.71 mm ± 2.19) and the apical inferior segment being the thinnest wall (5.9 mm ± 1.58; P < .001). Over all LV segments, the maximum upper limit, as defined as 2 SD above the mean, was 13.6 mm for men (LV1) and 11.2 mm for women. For men, only the basal anterior segment was above 13 mm. There was a significant difference in average LV-MDWT between women and men with 6.47 mm ± 1.07 and 7.90 mm ± 1.24, respectively (P < .001). Significant differences in LV-MDWT were found in the subgroups aged less than 65 years and greater than or equal to 65 years (P < .001). There was a strong correlation between LV-MDWT and LV mass (P < .001). Conclusion Normal sex- and age-specific reference ranges for LV-MDWT in prospective ECG-triggered mid-diastolic coronary CT angiography have been provided. These benchmarks may expand the diagnostic and prognostic roles of CT angiography, beyond its role in the identification of coronary artery disease. Keywords: Adults, Anatomy, CT, CT-Angiography, Cardiac, Cardiomyopathies, Experimental Investigations, Heart, Left Ventricle © RSNA, 2019

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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