MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135344281 · doi:10.1111/echo.15026

A multicenter study of three‐dimensional echocardiographic evaluation of normal pediatric left ventricular volumes and function

2021· article· en· W3135344281 on OpenAlexaff
Pei‐Ni Jone, Lisa Le, Zhaoxing Pan, Tim Colen, Sachie Shigemitsu, Nee Scze Khoo, Benjamin H. Goot, Anitha Parthiban, David M. Harrild, Alessandra M. Ferraro, Gerald R. Marx

Bibliographic record

VenueEchocardiography · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationEjection fractionStroke volumeBody surface areaRepeatabilityNuclear medicineCardiac magnetic resonanceVentricular functionVentricular volumeMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyEnd-diastolic volumeEnd-systolic volumeInternal medicineRadiologyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) evaluation of left ventricular (LV) volume and function in pediatrics compares favorably with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The aim of this study was to establish from a multicenter, normal pediatric z-score values of 3DE left ventricular volumes and function. METHODS: Six hundred and ninety-eight healthy children (ages 0-18 years) were recruited from five centers. LV 3DE was acquired from the 4-chamber view. A vendor-independent software analyzed end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) using semi-automated quantification. Body surface area (BSA)-based z-scores were generated. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were calculated using intraclass correlation (ICC) and repeatability coefficient (RC). RESULTS: Z-scores were generated for ESV, EDV, and SV. The ICC for intraobserver variability for EDV, ESV, and SV was 0.99, 0.99, and 0.99, respectively. The ICC for interobserver variability for EDV, ESV, and SV was 0.98, 0.94, and 0.98, respectively. The RC for intraobserver and interobserver variability for LV EF was 4.39% (95% CI: 3.01, 5.59) and interobserver was 7.08% (95%CI: 5.51, 8.42). CONCLUSIONS: We report pediatric z-scores for normal LV volumes using the semi-automated method from five centers, enhancing its generalizability. 3DE evaluation of LV volumes and EF in pediatric patients is highly reproducible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEchocardiographySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207