MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13614: Why the Pulmonary Veins: Linking Atrial 4D Flow MRI Derived Biomechanics and Pulmonary Vein Electrical Remodeling

2022· article· en· W4380794822 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew C Nickel, Cody Johnson, Brandon A Tran, Blake E. Fleeman, Ryan Kipp, Daniel Modaff, Jennifer M. Wright, Alexey V. Glukhov, Alejandro Roldan Alzate, Matthew M. Kalscheur

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityBrandon Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyAtrial fibrillationInternal medicinePulmonary veinMagnetic resonance imagingHemodynamicsAblationSinus rhythmCatheter ablationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pulmonary veins (PV) often trigger atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the underlying mechanism is not completely understood and predicting who benefits from PV isolation (PVI) is imprecise. We propose that arrhythmogenic PV remodeling may be related to myocardial mechanical function. Flow-encoded cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (4D Flow MRI) based computational modeling enables assessment of left atrial (LA) hemodynamics and biomechanics. In this pilot study, 4D Flow MRI derived parameters were compared to invasive electroanatomic mapping (EAM) and hemodynamics to explore potential non-invasive evaluation of PV remodeling and arrhythmogenicity. Methods: Patients (5 female, 4 male, age 64±6.7 years) with paroxysmal or early persistent AF scheduled for PVI were enrolled. All patients underwent 4D Flow MRI prior to ablation (in sinus rhythm) and intraprocedural EAM (Carto) with atrial pacing under baseline conditions and after increasing LA pressure with a fluid bolus. Non-invasive measures included peak and average velocity (m/s) and net flow (ml/cycle) in each vein (n=36) and averaged for each patient. Apparent conduction velocities in the proximal, mid and distal portions of each vein were calculated under baseline and stretch conditions from EAM. Change in LA pressure per volume bolus, a measure of atrial stiffness, was compared to non-invasive parameters. Results: In patients with LA stiffness greater than median, peak velocities (0.77±0.12 vs. 0.62±0.24 m/s, p=0.26) and net flows were higher (17±2.0 vs. 14.0±2.4 ml/cycle, p=0.06). Patients with paroxysms of spontaneous arrhythmias during mapping had higher LA stiffness (11.5±5.7 vs. 7.6±5.3 mmHg/L, p=0.30). There was a significant correlation between non-invasive average velocity and apparent conduction velocity in the proximal portion of the vein (R=-0.36, p=0.03) and the suggestion of a correlation between increasing peak flow velocity and decreased apparent conduction velocity under stretch conditions compared to baseline (R=-0.24, p=0.16). Conclusions: Our findings may indicate a link between atrial hemodynamics, electrical remodeling and PV arrhythmogenicity. Additional studies are warranted to confirm and better define these findings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→