MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Calculating Relative Lung Perfusion Using Fluoroscopic Sequences and Image Analysis: The Fluoroscopic Flow Calculator

2023· article· en· W4390344769 on OpenAlexaff
Yuval Barak‐Corren, Christian Herz, András Lassó, Yoav Dori, Jessica Tang, Christopher L. Smith, Ryan Callahan, Jonathan J. Rome, Matthew J. Gillespie, Matthew A. Jolley, Michael L. O’Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesQueen's University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicinePerfusionLungFluoroscopyNuclear medicinePulmonary arteryBlood flowVentricleRadiologyPerfusion scanningCardiac catheterizationCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maldistribution of pulmonary blood flow in patients with congenital heart disease impacts exertional performance and pulmonary artery growth. Currently, measurement of relative pulmonary perfusion can only be performed outside the catheterization laboratory. We sought to develop a tool for measuring relative lung perfusion using readily available fluoroscopy sequences. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with conotruncal anomalies who underwent lung perfusion scans and subsequent cardiac catheterizations between 2011 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were nonselective angiogram of pulmonary vasculature, oblique angulation ≤20°, and an adequate view of both lung fields. A method was developed and implemented in 3D Slicer’s SlicerHeart extension to calculate the amount of contrast that entered each lung field from the start of contrast injection and until the onset of levophase. The predicted perfusion distribution was compared with the measured distribution of pulmonary blood flow and evaluated for correlation, accuracy, and bias. RESULTS: In total, 32% (79/249) of screened studies met the inclusion criteria. A strong correlation between the predicted flow split and the measured flow split was found ( R 2 =0.83; P <0.001). The median absolute error was 6%, and 72% of predictions were within 10% of the true value. Bias was not systematically worse at either extreme of the flow distribution. The prediction was found to be more accurate for either smaller and younger patients (age 0–2 years), for right ventricle injections, or when less cranial angulations were used (≤20°). In these cases (n=40), the prediction achieved R 2 =0.87, median absolute error of 5.5%, and 78% of predictions were within 10% of the true flow. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates the feasibility of a novel method for measuring relative lung perfusion using conventional angiograms. Real-time measurement of lung perfusion at the catheterization laboratory has the potential to reduce unnecessary testing, associated costs, and radiation exposure. Further optimization and validation is warranted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207