MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211758069 · doi:10.1002/nbm.4643

Myocardial blood flow is the dominant factor influencing cardiac magnetic resonance adenosine stress T2

2021· article· en· W3211758069 on OpenAlexafffund
Jill J. Weyers, Venkat Ramanan, Ahsan Javed, Jennifer Barry, Melissa Larsen, Krishna S. Nayak, Graham A. Wright, Nilesh R. Ghugre

Bibliographic record

VenueNMR in Biomedicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsHemodynamicsBlood flowAdenosineCardiologyMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineMedicineRate pressure productCoronary circulationReactive hyperemiaOxygenCardiac outputBlood pressureHeart rateChemistryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress imaging identifies ischemic myocardium by comparing hemodynamics during rest and hyperemic stress. Hyperemia affects multiple hemodynamic parameters in myocardium, including myocardial blood flow (MBF), myocardial blood volume (MBV), and venous blood oxygen levels (PvO 2 ). Cardiac T2 is sensitive to these changes and therefore is a promising non‐contrast option for stress imaging; however, the impact of individual hemodynamic factors on T2 is poorly understood, making the connection from altered T2 to changes within the tissue difficult. To better understand this interplay, we performed T2 mapping and measured various hemodynamic factors independently in healthy pigs at multiple levels of hyperemic stress, induced by different doses of adenosine (0.14‐0.56 mg/kg/min). T1 mapping quantified changes in MBV. MBF was assessed with microspheres, and oxygen consumption was determined by the rate pressure product (RPP). Simulations were also run to better characterize individual contributions to T2. Myocardial T2, MBF, oxygen consumption, and MBV all changed to varying extents between each level of adenosine stress (T2 = 37.6‐41.8 ms; MBF = 0.48‐1.32 mL/min/g; RPP = 6507‐4001 bmp*mmHg; maximum percent change in MBV = 1.31%). Multivariable analyses revealed MBF as the dominant influence on T2 during hyperemia (significant β ‐values >7). Myocardial oxygen consumption had almost no effect on T2 ( β ‐values <0.002); since PvO 2 is influenced by both oxygen consumption and MBF, PvO 2 changes detected by T2 during adenosine stress can be attributed to MBF. Simulations varying PvO 2 and MBV confirmed that PvO 2 had the strongest influence on T2, but MBV became important at high PvO 2 . Together, these data suggest a model where, during adenosine stress, myocardial T2 responds predominantly to changes in MBF, but at high hyperemia MBV is also influential. Thus, changes in adenosine stress T2 can now be interpreted in terms of the physiological changes that led to it, enabling T2 mapping to become a viable non‐contrast option to detect ischemic myocardial tissue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNMR in BiomedicineSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207