MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 15620: Diagnostic Accuracy of Virtual Non-Contrast CT for Aortic Valve Stenosis Severity Evaluation

2023· article· en· W4389956924 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Lorenzatti, Ari Feinberg, Pamela Piña, Jonathan Daich, Javier Pérez Cervera, Rita Miranda, Sandra S. Halliburton, Aldo L. Schenone, Andrea Scotti, Toshiki Kuno, Damini Dey, Philippe Pîbarot, Marc R. Dweck, Mario J. García, Leandro Slipczuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisConcordanceAortic valveNuclear medicineRadiologyProspective cohort studyAortic valve stenosisMultidetector computed tomographyComputed tomographyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Computed tomography (CT) aortic valve calcium (AVC) score has important prognostic and diagnostic value in patients with aortic stenosis, especially in those evaluated for TAVR, but at the expense of an additional non-contrast scan. Dual-energy CT (DECT) allows virtual non-contrast reconstructions (VNC) from conventional contrast acquisitions. Aims: Compare the diagnostic performance of VNC-AVC score as compared to TNC-AVC score for identifying severe AS. Methods: We prospectively included patients undergoing pre-TAVR CT with a DECT system (IQon, Philips). TNC-AVC score was acquired using a prospective acquisition and VNC-AVC score derived from a contrast-enhanced retrospective scan. Both scores were calculated using the Agatston method. A correction proportionality constant was applied. Concordant severe AS was defined as AVA<1cm2 and either Vmax >4cm/s or mean gradient ≥40mmHg. Spearman, Cohen’s Kappa, and Bland-Altman were used to assess concordance. Results: In total, 109 patients were included: mean age of 79 ± 10 yrs, 55% female, 43% with concordant severe, 43% LF-LG, and 14% moderate AS. TNC scan median radiation was 116 mGy*cm (IQR 53-366). The median TNC-AVC was 2753 AU (1652-4135), while the median VNC-AVC was 1900 AU (946-2752) after applying the constant (1.43). A strong correlation was demonstrated between methods (r=0.89; p<0.001; Figure). Using accepted thresholds (>1300 AU for women and >2000 AU for men), 68% (n=74) of patients had severe AS by TNC. After estimating thresholds for VNC (>660 for women and >1519 for men), 60% (n=65) had severe AS, demonstrating substantial agreement with TNC-AVC (K;=0.71). Among individuals diagnosed with LF-LG, 38% and 34% exhibited severe AS by TNC/VNC, respectively, and only 12% and 11% in those with moderate AS. Conclusions: DECT-derived VNC-AVC demonstrates substantial agreement with TNC AVC, without requiring an additional scan and reducing both radiation exposure and acquisition time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207