MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005659685 · doi:10.1186/s12968-020-0599-3

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance based diagnosis of left ventricular non-compaction cardiomyopathy: impact of cine bSSFP strain analysis

2020· article· en· W3005659685 on OpenAlexaff
John G. Dreisbach, Shobhit Mathur, Christian Houbois, Erwin Oechslin, Heather J. Ross, Kate Hanneman, Bernd J. Wintersperger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFeature trackingCardiomyopathyInternal medicineCardiologyAngiologyMagnetic resonance imagingLeft ventricular noncompactionSubgroup analysisCardiac magnetic resonance imagingStrain (injury)Cardiac magnetic resonanceDilated cardiomyopathyPhenotypeRadiologyHeart failureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Investigation of the myocardial strain characteristics of the left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) phenotype with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking. METHODS: CMR cine balanced steady-state free precession data sets of 59 retrospectively identified LVNC phenotype patients (40 years, IQR: 28-50 years; 51% male) and 36 healthy subjects (39 years, IQR: 30-47 years; 44% male) were evaluated for LV volumes, systolic function and mass. Hypertrabeculation in patients and healthy subjects was evaluated against established CMR diagnostic criteria. Global circumferential strain (GCS), global radial strain (GRS) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) were evaluated with feature-tracking software. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients (n = 25) and healthy subjects (n = 34) with normal LV volumetrics, and with healthy subjects (n = 18) meeting at least one LVNC diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: (100% vs. 41.7%). LVNC phenotype patients demonstrated reduced GRS (26.4% vs. 37.1%; p < 0.001), GCS (- 16.5% vs. -20.5%; p < 0.001) and GLS (- 14.6% vs. -17.1%; p < 0.001) compared to healthy subjects, with statistically significant differences persisting on subgroup comparisons of LVNC phenotype patients with healthy subjects meeting diagnostic criteria. GCS also demonstrated independent and incremental diagnostic value beyond each of the morphology-based CMR diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSIONS: LVNC phenotype patients demonstrate impaired strain by CMR feature tracking, also present on comparison of subjects with normal LV volumetrics meeting diagnostic criteria. The high proportion of healthy subjects meeting morphology-based CMR diagnostic criteria emphasizes the important potential complementary diagnostic value of strain in differentiating LVNC from physiologic hypertrabeculation.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.018
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207