Multimodality Assessment of Thoracic Aortic Dimensions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare thoracic aortic measurements between computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 127 patients (mean age: 45±18 y, 49% male) who had undergone CT and MRI evaluation of the thoracic aorta at a single tertiary referral hospital within a 6-month interval between 2007 and 2017 were included in this retrospective study. TTE studies performed within the same 6-month interval were also evaluated. Thoracic aortic measurements were blindly evaluated using multiple techniques and were compared between modalities. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in maximum aortic root diameter between CT and MRI when using the inner lumen-to-inner lumen technique (mean difference: 0.2±1.4 mm, P=0.51) or the outer lumen-to-outer lumen technique (mean difference: 0.5±1.4 mm, P=0.07). There were no significant differences between CT and MRI at any other level except for the distal descending aorta (20.2±4.6 vs. 19.8±4.6 mm, P<0.001). However, aortic root measurements by TTE using the leading edge-to-leading edge technique were significantly smaller compared with maximum aortic root diameters using the inner lumen-to-inner lumen and outer lumen-to-outer lumen techniques by both CT (mean difference: 4.9±2.7 mm, P<0.001 and 7.4±2.8 mm, P<0.001, respectively) and MRI (mean difference: 4.8±3.2 mm, P<0.001 and 8.2±3.0 mm, P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is excellent agreement in thoracic aortic measurements between CT and MRI. However, TTE significantly underestimates maximum aortic root diameter compared with CT and MRI. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting small apparent changes in aortic root diameters between TTE and CT or MRI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it