MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035367256 · doi:10.1148/ryct.2020190149

Left Ventricular Mass and Wall Thickness Measurements Using Echocardiography and Cardiac MRI in Patients with Fabry Disease: Clinical Significance of Discrepant Findings

2020· article· en· W3035367256 on OpenAlex
Ciara O’Brien, Ian Britton, Gauri Rani Karur, Robert M. Iwanochko, Chantal F. Morel, Elsie T. Nguyen, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Anna Woo, Kate Hanneman

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 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLysosomal Storage Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationCardiologyFabry diseaseInternal medicineLeft ventricular hypertrophyNuclear medicineRadiologyDiseaseBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To compare transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac MRI measurements of left ventricular mass (LVM) and maximum wall thickness (MWT) in patients with Fabry disease and evaluate the clinical significance of discrepancies between modalities. Materials and Methods Seventy-eight patients with Fabry disease (mean age, 46 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 63% female) who underwent TTE and cardiac MRI within a 6-month interval between 2008 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The clinical significance of measurement discrepancies was evaluated with respect to diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), eligibility for disease-specific therapy, and prognosis. Statistical analysis included paired-sample t test, Cox proportional hazard models, Akaike information criterion (AIC), and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results LVM indexed to body surface area (LVMI) and MWT were significantly higher at TTE compared with MRI (105 g/m2 ± 48 vs 78 g/m2 ± 36, P < .001 and 14 mm ± 4 vs 13 mm ± 5, P = .008, respectively). LVH classification was discordant between modalities in 23 patients (29%) (P < .001). Eligibility for disease-specific therapy based on MWT was discordant between modalities in 20 patients (26%) (P < .001). LVMI assessed with MRI was a better predictor of the combined endpoint compared with LVMI assessed with TTE (AIC, 127 vs 131). Interobserver agreement for LVMI and MWT was higher for MRI (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.951 and 0.912, respectively) compared with TTE (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.940 and 0.871; respectively). Conclusion TTE overestimates LVM and MWT and has lower reproducibility compared with cardiac MRI in Fabry disease. Measurement discrepancies between modalities are clinically significant with respect to diagnosis of LVH, prognosis, and treatment decisions. Keywords: Adults, Cardiac, Cardiomyopathies, MR-Imaging © RSNA, 2020

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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