Left Ventricular Mass and Wall Thickness Measurements Using Echocardiography and Cardiac MRI in Patients with Fabry Disease: Clinical Significance of Discrepant Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".