MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of idiopathic frequent premature ventricular complexes with normal ventricular function

2021· article· en· W3213482469 on OpenAlexaff
Farshad Hosseini, Gaurav S. Gulsin, Darra Murphy, Nathaniel M. Hawkins, J. Andrade, Zachary Laksman, Mihoko V. Bennett, John A. Yeung‐Lai‐Wah, S. Chakrabarti, A.D. Krahn, Marc W. Deyell

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionPalpitationsCardiologyInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingCohortCardiac magnetic resonance imagingOdds ratioConfidence intervalPopulationHeart failureRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The role of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with frequent premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains unclear. Existing data has been predominantly derived from highly selected populations, that may overestimate the true prevalence of abnormal findings on CMR in this patient population. Purpose The aim of this study was 2-fold: 1) to establish the prevalence of CMR imaging abnormalities in a cohort with normal LVEF and high PVC burden; 2) to identify predictors of CMR imaging abnormalities in patients with frequent PVCs and normal LVEF. Methods In this cohort study, 211 patients (age 53.2±19 years; 41% male) with frequent PVCs (≥5%/24 h), of normal LVEF (≥50% by echocardiography) and no known underlying structural heart disease were prospectively enrolled from 2016–2020. Of these, 166 (79%) patients were symptomatic from their PVCs in the form of palpitations, fatigue, chest pain, dizziness, and/or dyspnea. Patients underwent CMR imaging (1.5 Tesla) with a late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) protocol at the time of enrollment for the detection of scarring and/or fibrosis. Results Patients had a median baseline echocardiographic LVEF of 60% (± 5%) with 195 (92%) of patients having a normal native QRS morphology. Median PVC burden of the study cohort was 16% (± 14%). CMR LGE abnormalities were found in 19 (9%) patients including 17 scans with non-ischemic LGE and 2 with ischemic LGE. Age >60 (odds ratio [OR]: 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–8.51, p=0.020), male sex (OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.61–13.50, p=0.004), history of hypertension (OR: 3.43, 95% CI: 1.31–8.97, p=0.012), native QRS duration (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.00–1.05, p=0.031), and history of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (OR: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.03–7.68, p=0.044) were significantly associated with the presence of imaging abnormalities on CMR. Dominant PVC origin from the left ventricle had a positive trend (OR: 2.60, 95% CI: 0.99–7.66, p=0.083) to association with CMR imaging abnormalities. On multivariate analysis, male sex (OR: 4.10, 95% CI: 1.40–12.04, p=0.010) and history of hypertension (OR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.08–7.75, p=0.035) remained significantly associated with the presence of CMR abnormalities. There was no association between CMR imaging abnormalities and the burden of PVCs or the number of PVC morphologies. Conclusion In this cohort, only 9% of patients with apparently idiopathic frequent PVCs and normal LVEF had concealed myocardial abnormalities on CMR imaging. Male sex and history of hypertension were associated with a higher rate of CMR abnormalities. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→