Endogenous T1ρ cardiovascular magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is characterized by increased left ventricular wall thickness, cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, and fibrosis. Adverse cardiac risk characterization has been performed using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), native T1, and extracellular volume (ECV). Relaxation time constants are affected by background field inhomogeneity. T1ρ utilizes a spin-lock pulse to decrease the effect of unwanted relaxation. The objective of this study was to study T1ρ as compared to T1, ECV, and LGE in HCM patients. METHODS: HCM patients were recruited as part of the Novel Markers of Prognosis in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy study, and healthy controls were matched for comparison. In addition to cardiac functional imaging, subjects underwent T1 and T1ρ cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at short-axis positions at 1.5T. Subjects received gadolinium and underwent LGE imaging 15-20 min after injection covering the entire heart. Corresponding basal and mid short axis LGE slices were selected for comparison with T1 and T1ρ. Full-width half-maximum thresholding was used to determine the percent enhancement area in each LGE-positive slice by LGE, T1, and T1ρ. Two clinicians independently reviewed LGE images for presence or absence of enhancement. If in agreement, the image was labeled positive (LGE + +) or negative (LGE --); otherwise, the image was labeled equivocal (LGE + -). RESULTS: In 40 HCM patients and 10 controls, T1 percent enhancement area (Spearman's rho = 0.61, p < 1e-5) and T1ρ percent enhancement area (Spearman's rho = 0.48, p < 0.001e-3) correlated with LGE percent enhancement area. T1 and T1ρ percent enhancement areas were also correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.28, p = 0.047). For both T1 and T1ρ, HCM patients demonstrated significantly longer relaxation times compared to controls in each LGE category (p < 0.001 for all). HCM patients also showed significantly higher ECV compared to controls in each LGE category (p < 0.01 for all), and LGE -- slices had lower ECV than LGE + + (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hyperenhancement areas as measured by T1ρ and LGE are moderately correlated. T1, T1ρ, and ECV were elevated in HCM patients compared to controls, irrespective of the presence of LGE. These findings warrant additional studies to investigate the prognostic utility of T1ρ imaging in the evaluation of HCM patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".