VP15.15: Cardiac cycle time‐related parameters to assess fetal cardiac function in high‐risk fetuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the potential clinical utility of cardiac cycle time-related pulsed Doppler parameters-filling time fraction (FTF) and ejection time fraction (ETF) in selected high risk fetuses. 54 fetuses were included in our study: 9 pairs of monochorionic twins with stage 3–4 Twin–twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), 16 aortic stenosis (AoS) and 20 aortic coarctation (CoA). Pulsed Doppler was adjusted to better visualise the opening and closure clicks of the valves (figure 1). Left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular inflow and outflow tracings were obtained to calculate FTF ([filling time/cycle time]*100), and ETF (ejection time[cycle time]*100). Z-scores were calculated using normograms constructed according to heart rate and gestational age. Most recipients (6/9 cases) showed LV and/or RV FTF below the 5th centile and preserved ETF. Donors presented no alterations. AoS was associated with decreased LV FTF in 62.5% of cases (10/16), which was more pronounced in the group of fetuses with univentricular (UV) outcome (biventricular (BV) 5/11, 45.5% vs. UV 5/5, 100%). On the contrary, ETF was increased in 9/16 (56.3%) in the AoS cases with BV outcome (BV 7/11 (63.7%) vs. UV 2/5, 40%). Finally, most fetuses with CoA showed normal FTF and EFT in both ventricles reflecting different pathophysiology from AoS. Cardiac cycle time-related pulsed Doppler parameters show different patterns in in TTTS, AoS and CoA. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings and explore the utility of FTF and ETF in other pathological conditions. Supporting information can be found in the online version of this abstract Relative wall thickness - Left ventricle (LV) - Right ventricle (RV) LV: 1.02 (0.71 - 1.16) RV: 0.95 (0.76 - 1.13) LV: 0.80 (0.68 - 1.01) RV: 0.68 (0.57 - 0.76) LV:0.65(0.59-0.90) RV:0.62(0.57-0.76) 0.056 0.001* 0.021* < 0.001* 0.150 0.135 Supporting Information Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".