Reproducibility assessment of rapid strains in cardiac MRI: Insights and recommendations for clinical application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have shown the incremental value of strain imaging in various cardiac diseases. However, reproducibility and generalizability has remained an issue of concern. To overcome this, simplified algorithms such as rapid atrioventricular strains have been proposed. This multicenter study aimed to assess the reproducibility of rapid strains in a real-world setting and identify potential predictors for higher interobserver variation. METHODS: A total of 4 sites retrospectively identified 80 patients and 80 healthy controls who had undergone cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) at their respective centers using locally available scanners with respective field strengths and imaging protocols. Strain and volumetric parameters were measured at each site and then independently re-evaluated by a blinded core lab. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess inter-observer agreement. In addition, backward multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for higher inter-observer variation. RESULTS: There was excellent agreement between sites in feature-tracking and rapid strain values (ICC ≥ 0.96). Bland-Altman plots showed no significant bias. Bi-atrial feature-tracking and rapid strains showed equally excellent agreement (ICC ≥ 0.96) but broader limits of agreement (≤18.0 % vs. ≤3.5 %). Regression analysis showed that higher field strength and lower temporal resolution (>30 ms) independently predicted reduced interobserver agreement for bi-atrial strain parameters (ß = 0.38, p = 0.02 for field strength and ß = 0.34, p = 0.02 for temporal resolution). CONCLUSION: Simplified rapid left ventricular and bi-atrial strain parameters can be reliably applied in a real-world multicenter setting. Due to the results of the regression analysis, a minimum temporal resolution of 30 ms is recommended when assessing atrial deformation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.179 | 0.300 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".