MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380150637 · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2023.05.010

Fetal Echocardiographic Z Score Pilot Project: Study Design and Impact of Gestational Age and Variable Type on Reproducibility of Measurements Within and Across Investigators

2023· article· en· W4380150637 on OpenAlexaff
Anita J. Moon‐Grady, Hyejung Lee, Leo Lopez, Oluwatosin Fatusin, Lindsay R. Freud, Whitnee Hogan, Anita Krishnan, Carol McFarland, L. LuAnn Minich, Shaine A. Morris, Nelangi M. Pinto, Angela P. Presson, Theresa A. Tacy, Mary T. Donofrio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Echocardiography · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesUniversity of California, San FranciscoNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineGestational ageReproducibilityFetusCardiologyConcordance correlation coefficientRepeatabilityInternal medicineCorrelationInterclass correlationDuctus arteriosusPregnancyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fetal echocardiography is widely available, but normative data are not robust. In this pilot study, the authors evaluated (1) the feasibility of prespecified measurements in a normal fetal echocardiogram to inform study design and (2) measurement variability to assign thresholds of clinical significance and guide analyses in larger fetal echocardiographic Z score initiatives. METHODS: Images from predefined gestational age groups (16-20, >20-24, >24-28, and >28-32 weeks) were retrospectively analyzed. Fetal echocardiography expert raters attended online group training and then independently analyzed 73 fetal studies (18 per age group) in a fully crossed design of 53 variables; each observer repeated measures for 12 fetuses. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare measurements across centers and age groups. Coefficients of variation (CoVs) were calculated at the subject level for each measurement as the ratio of SD to mean. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to show inter- and intrarater reliabilities. Cohen's d > 0.8 was used to define clinically important differences. Measurements were plotted against gestational age, biparietal diameter, and femur length. RESULTS: Expert raters completed each set of measurements in a mean of 23 ± 9 min/fetus. Missingness ranged from 0% to 29%. CoVs were similar across age groups for all variables (P < .05) except ductus arteriosus mean velocity and left ventricular ejection time, which were both higher at older gestational age. CoVs were >15% for right ventricular systolic and diastolic widths despite fair to good repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.5); ductal velocities and two-dimensional measures, left ventricular short-axis dimensions, and isovolumic times all had high CoVs and high interobserver variability despite good to excellent intraobserver agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.6). CoVs did not improve when ratios (e.g., tricuspid/mitral annulus) were used instead of linear measurements. Overall, 27 variables had acceptable inter- and intraobserver repeatability, while 14 had excessive variability between readers despite good intraobserver agreement. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in fetal echocardiographic quantification in clinical practice that may affect the design of multicenter fetal echocardiographic Z score studies, and not all measurements may be feasible for standard normalization. As missingness was substantial, a prospective design will be needed. Data from this pilot study may aid in the calculation of sample sizes and inform thresholds for distinguishing clinically significant from statistically significant effects.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of EchocardiographySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207