MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393204285 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcchd.2024.100508

Correlation of ECG and cardiac MRI for assessment of ventricular hypertrophy and dilatation in adults with repaired tetralogy of Fallot

2024· article· en· W4393204285 on OpenAlexaff
Shanjot Brar, Mehima Kang, Amit Sodhi, Marc W. Deyell, Zachary Laksman, Jason G. Andrade, Matthew T. Bennett, Andrew D. Krahn, John A. Yeung‐Lai‐Wah, Richard G. Bennett, Amanda Barlow, Jasmine Grewal, Gnalini Sathananthan, Santabhanu Chakrabarti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cardiology Congenital Heart Disease · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetralogy of FallotCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineRight ventricular hypertrophyLeft ventricular hypertrophyHeart diseaseVentricle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Surgically repaired Tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF) is associated with progressive right ventricular hypertrophy (RVH) and dilation (RVD). Accurate estimation of RVH/RVD is vital for the ongoing management of this patient population. The utility of the ECG in evaluating patients with rTOF with pre-existing right bundle branch block (RBBB) has not been studied. We aimed to determine the sensitivity/specificity of currently established ECG criteria in detecting RVH/RVD in this patient population. Methods: We included consecutive patients diagnosed with rTOF who underwent CMR performed at our regional referral centre between January 2012 and December 2019. Each CMR was assessed for LVH, LVD, RVH and or RVD. The ECG corresponding to the CMR was then used to determine RVH/LVH for specificity and sensitivity analysis. Results: Our study included 163 consecutive rTOF patients. The specificity for ECG-based criteria for LVH was 100.00% (95% C.I. (87.75, 100.00)), and the sensitivity was 7.19% (95% C.I. (3.15, 12.83)). When RBBB was present, specificity for RVH was 100.00% (95% C.I. (84.56, 100.00)), and sensitivity was 7.69% (95% C.I. (3.75, 13.69)). When RBBB was absent, specificity for RVH was 100.00% (95% C.I. (15.81, 100.00)), and sensitivity was 0.00% (95% C.I. (0.00, 33.63)). A regression model with the entire group of 163 ToF patients, based on the Sokolow-Lyon criterion (sum of R in V1 + S in V5/V6), produced a new suggested criterion for the diagnosis of RVH in patients with rTOF, which was a sum of R in V1 + S in V5/V6 greater than 13.25 mm. This model's sensitivity for RVH detection was 69.1%, and specificity was 36.8%. Conclusions: Standard ECG voltage criteria have poor sensitivity for detecting right and left ventricular chamber hypertrophy and dilatation in patients with rTOF, so current ECG criteria should not be used to monitor RVH/RVD in this patient population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cardiology Congenital Heart DiseaseSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207