P959 Handheld echocardiography in a real world scenario: concordances compared to standard echo reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Handheld echocardiography devices(HH) arise as a common tool in clinical examination and screening for various cardiovascular disorders. Despite of it, studies with this method are small, with unselected patients and limited scope of diagnostic comparison. Purpose Assess the usefulness of the new miniaturized HH and compare its concordances with the standard high definition echocardiography study(STD). Methods Between April and May of 2016 adult patients who were scheduled to regular STD, were also submitted to a HH exam. Experienced sonographers performed and an experienced echocardiographer reviewed the STD exam, and an experienced echocardiographer performed and reviewed the HH study - reviewers were blinded to the other study results. STD exams included 2-dimensional images, Color Doppler and hemodynamics analysis. With the HH hemodynamic assessment was not performed as the machine does not include such technology. Agreement between the reports was analyzed. Results 110 patients were included. Mean age was 62.4 ± 16.7 years. The κ values(Table) show good correlation between HH and STD on the analysis of left ventricular global and segment functions, right ventricle size and function, mitral and aortic stenosis. On the evaluation of left ventricle hypertrophy, mitral and aortic regurgitations the correlation was modest, while poor correlation was found for pulmonary and tricuspid regurgitations. Conclusion In a daily practice scenario with experienced hands, HH demonstrates good results for the assessment of ventricles size and function, while the evaluation of right heart valves was the least reliable performance. Dissemination of HH should occur with considerations and caution. K Values for Echocardiography Analysis Echocardiography analysis K value Global estimated LV dysfunction 0.85 Wall motion abnormalities 0.78 LV hypertrophy 0.6 RV size 0.83 RV function 0.82 Mitral regurgitation 0.42 Aortic regurgitation 0.56 Mitral stenosis 0.96 Aortic stenosis 0.82 Tricuspid regurgitation 0.26 Pulmonary regurgitation 0.25 LV: left ventricle; RV: right ventricle.
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 | 0.014 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".