MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abnormal left-sided blood volume, wall shear stress & energy loss in patients with repaired Tetralogy of Fallot identified by 4D flow MRI

2021· article· en· W3207164402 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheraz Ali, Ashifa Hudani, James White, Denise Patton, S Greenway, Julio García

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodynamicsTetralogy of FallotCardiologyInternal medicineBlood flowHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) occurs in 4 of every 10,000 live births and is the most common form of cyanotic congenital heart disease. Patients with repaired TOF (rTOF) require long-term and frequent monitoring for many complications that may arise. The hemodynamic alterations that contribute to the quality of life and outcomes for these patients are understudied and poorly understood. Purpose The objective of this study was to use 4D Flow MRI to assess flow hemodynamics in patients with rTOF to better identify and predict altered hemodynamic patterns to assist with future interventions. We hypothesized, patients with rTOF will have abnormal left-sided flow hemodynamics compared to healthy controls resulting in poorer hemodynamic patterns even after post-repair. Methods A total of 20 rToF patients (age = 34.5±11.2, female = 5) and 20 healthy controls (age = 37.0±12.1, female = 6) were enrolled in this study and underwent standard cardiac MRI followed by 4D Flow MRI acquisition. Figure 1 demonstrates the workflow of the analysis that was performed using cvi42 v5.11 (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Calgary, Canada). The Aorta and LV were segmented, flow visualization and quantitative flow analysis were performed by placing analysis planes perpendicular to the flow of interest as shown in Figure 1. Total volume (TV), Wall Shear Stress Axial (WSSax), circumferential (WSScirc) and energy loss (EL) were calculated. Statistics were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 27. An independent-samples t-test was used to compare parameters and identify significant differences between controls and patients. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results In comparison to controls, TV of the STJ (66.89±17.33 vs. 82.28±18.77, p=0.011), Aao (56.05±10.71 vs. 73.04±19.66, p=0.002), and 1st Aortic Arch (AAr) (56.88±12.97 vs. 69.52±18.65, p=0.017) were lower in rTOF patients. In addition, patients with rTOF had higher average WSSax in the LVOT (0.13±0.05 vs. 0.10±0.03, p=0.049), STJ (0.10±0.02 vs. 0.07±0.02, p=0.001), and Aao (0.10±0.03 vs. 0.08±0.02, p<0.000) compared to controls. Moreover, average WSScirc in the LVOT (0.07±0.02 vs. 0.05±0.01, p=0.010), STJ (0.07±0.02 vs. 0.05±0.01, p=0.006), Aao (0.07±0.02 vs. 0.05±0.01, p=0.004), and 1st AAr (0.06±0.02 vs. 0.05±0.01, p=0.017) were higher in patients compared to controls. Lastly, EL in the Aao was lower in patients compared to controls (1.87±0.83 vs. 2.47±1.03, p=0.049). Significant results are demonstrated in Table 1, red illustrating lower values in patients compared to controls and green illustrating higher values. Conclusion This study unveiled abnormal left-sided blood flow in rToF patients with reduced TV and increased WSSax, average WSScirc and EL. These new hemodynamic insights obtained from 4D flow MRI may help to inform future individualized decision-making for patients with rTOF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): University of Calgary

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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