Left atrial-left ventricular angle, a new measure of left atrial and left ventricular remodeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the left atrial-left ventricular (LA-LV) long axis angulation value as a new measure of LA remodeling, and studied its predictors, its effect on two-dimensional LA volume (2D LAVol) estimation, and optimization techniques for 2D LAVol values. Retrospective electrocardiogram-gated coronary computed tomographic angiograms of 164 consecutive patients were reviewed. The LA-LV angle was measured in reconstructed 3-chamber views, and its predictors were determined. The LAVol measured by the area-length method after image optimization along the LV long axis (AL) and the LA long axis (AC-AL), was compared with that measured by the three-dimensional (3D)-volumetric method. LAVol calculation was modified to minimize differences from the 3D values. LA-LV angles ranged from 0° to 63°. In the univariate analysis, decreasing angulation was significantly associated with increasing LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), mitral regurgitation grade, LV and LA anteroposterior dimensions, and decreasing LV ejection fraction (LVEF). On multivariate analysis, increasing LVEDV, MR, and LA anteroposterior dimension inversely correlated with angulation; LVEF was positively correlated. The AL and 3D methods significantly differed only for patients with angles ≤ 29.9°. Conversely, LAVol was overestimated for all angules by AC-AL. Modification of AL LAVol using a regression equation, or by substituting the shortest with the longest and average LA lengths in patients with angles ≤ 29.9° and 30-39.9°, respectively neutralized the difference. The LA-LV angle is a new measure of LA and LV remodeling predicted by LV size and function, MR, and LA-anteroposterior dimension. AL formula modifications based on angulation in LV-optimized views better correlate with the 3D method than LA-view modification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".