Two-dimensional transthoracic measure of mitral annulus in mitral valve prolapse and moderate to severe regurgitation: a method comparison analysis with three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mitral annulus (MA) area is derived during transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) assuming of a circular shape using the MA diameter from the apical 4 chamber (A4c) view. Since the MA is not a circular structure, we hypothesized that an elliptical model using parasternal long-axis (PLAX) and apical 2 chamber (A2c) view measured MA diameters would have better agreement with 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D TEE) measured MA in degenerative mitral valve disease (DMVD). Methods Seventy-six patients with moderate-to-severe DMVD had 2D TTE and 3D TEE performed. MA area was measured retrospectively using semi-automatic modeling of 3D data (3D TEE sa ) and considered as the reference method. MA diameters were measured using different 2D TTE views. MA area was calculated using assumptions of a circular or an elliptical shape. 2D TTE derived and 3D TEE sa . MA areas were compared using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Results The median MA area measured at 3D TEE sa was 1,386 (1,293–1,673) mm 2 . With 2D TTE, the circular model using A4c view diameter resulted in a small systematic underestimation of MA area (6%), while the elliptical model using PLAX and A2c diameters resulted in 25% systematic underestimation. The standard deviations of the distributions of inter-method differences were wide for all 2D TTE methods (265–289 mm 2 ) when compared to 3D TEE sa , indicating imprecision. Conclusions When compared with 3D TEE sa modeling of the MA as the reference, the assumption of a circular shape using A4c TTE view diameter was the method with the least systematic error to assess MA area in DMVD and moderate to severe regurgitation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".