MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15531: Limited Relationship Between Echocardiographic Measures and Electrocardiographic Markers of Left Ventricular Dimensions in Healthy Children

2020· article· en· W3163049628 on OpenAlexaff
Mark E. Alexander, Russell Gongwer, Felicia Trachtenberg, LuAnn Minich, John K. Triedman, Jonathan R. Kaltman, Richard J. Czosek, M Tristani, Martin J. LaPage, Sabrina Tsao, Andrew E. Radbill, Michael P. DiLorenzo, Joshua Kovach, Elizabeth A. Stephenson, Christopher M. Janson, Chad Mao, Jack C. Salerno, Joseph Mahgerefteh, Thomas Pilcher, Tiffanie R. Johnson, Santiago O. Valdés, Lanier Jackson, Elizabeth V. Saarel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCohortEcho (communications protocol)Electrocardiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Prior ECG standards in children have largely been defined without echo confirmation of normal anatomy. The Pediatric Heart Network Normal Echocardiogram Z-score Project provides a racially diverse age/sex classified group of healthy children with normal echos that included 2170 matched contemporaneous digitally acquired ECGs. We hypothesized that ECG measures and z-scores of left ventricular (LV) dimensions are correlated in healthy children. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the previously described cohort. Six ECG measures historically associated with LV size (R V5, R V6, S V1, Q III, axis, R V6+S V1), and 13 paired echo measures were identified a-priori with LV Mass (LVMass-z) and left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV-z) z-scores serving as primary echo measurement predictors. Pearson or Spearman correlations were calculated for each of the 78 ECG- echo pairs. Regression analyses were performed to assess how much variance in ECG measures was explained by variation in LV dimensions and by demographic variables (age, sex, race). Results: ECG and echo measurement correlations were significant and concordant in 41/78 (53%), though many were significant and discordant in 13, (17%) or not correlated in 24 (31%). Of the 6 ECG measures of LV size, 5 correlated in the clinically predicted direction for LV Mass-z and LVEDV-z. While many of the correlations were statistically significant, the correlations were weak (0.05-0.25). R 2 was higher for demographic variables than for echo measures in all pairs, but even with demographic variables included, the overall R 2 was < 0.17. Conclusions: In a large, diverse cohort of healthy children, there was a positive association between echo measures of LV dimension and mass and the most commonly used ECG measures of LVH. However, these correlations were weak and most of the variability in ECG measures was explained by factors other than echo derived mass or volume or measured patient demographic variables. These data question the utility of traditional ECG measurements of LV size as standalone indications for further cardiac evaluation in healthy children.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→