MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14447: Multi-Center Evaluation of Stress Myocardial Blood Flow by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Known and Suspected Ischemic Heart Disease: Preliminary Findings From the AQUA-MBF Initiative

2022· article· en· W4380795721 on OpenAlexaff
Shuo Wang, Haonan Wang, Mitchel Benovoy, Ming‐Yen Ng, Paul Kim, Amita Singh, Hena Patel, Ibrahim M. Saeed, Gianluca Pontone, Saima Mushtaq, Javier Urmeneta, Elizabeth Hillier, Lars Christian Gormsen, Christoffer Laustsen, Martin Janich, Michael Salerno, Alexander Hirsch, Mark Lubberink, Alicia M. Maceira, José V. Monmeneu, Aju P. Pazhenkottil, Prashant Nagpal, Silke Friedrich, Joseph Gutbrod, Caroline Flournoy, Yuko Tada, Sin Tsun Hei, Ambrose Ho Tung Fong, Ka Man Carmen Cheng, Victor Goh, Simon Madsen, Matthias G. Friedrich, Amit R. Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreRead Jones Christoffersen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseStenosisCardiologyBlood flowInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingMyocardial infarctionCoronary arteriesCoronary flow reserveNuclear medicineRadiologyArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Quantitative myocardial blood flow (MBF) analysis using stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) in several mostly small, single-center studies. The AQUA-MBF ( A ssessment of QUA ntitative MBF ) study is a multicenter initiative involving 16 centers. Hypothesis: The goal of this sub-study is to determine if MBF can differentiate CAD, CMD, and normal volunteers in this multicenter setting. Methods: We present data from 53 subjects (15 with CAD, 20 at risk for CMD and 18 controls) who underwent vasodilator stress CMR (Figure) using 1.5T and 3.0T MR scanners (General Electric). At risk for CMD was defined as having diabetes and 2 other risk factors in absence of ≥50% stenosis based on coronary CT. CAD was defined as the presence of stenosis ≥70% based on invasive coronary angiography. Stress perfusion images were acquired using the dual sequence technique. Stress MBF was measured in each of the 16 AHA segments using Fermi deconvolution (Circle Cvi42). In the CAD group, each segment was further classified as having late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), supplied by CAD, or a normal remote territory. The means of the 5 groups were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Results: The segmental stress MBF (ml/g/min) for the 5 groups are shown in figure. Compared to the normal group, segmental stress MBF in 4 disease groups were significantly lower (p<0.001). Segmental MBF in those at risk for CMD was lower than normal segments and greater than CAD segments (p<0.001). LGE and CAD segments had the lowest stress MBF but similar to each other (p=0.9). Conclusions: In this multicenter study, we show that quantification of MBF using the dual sequence stress perfusion CMR technique can differentiate diseased from healthy myocardium and also between obstructive CAD and those at risk for CMD.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.270
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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→