MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4146225: Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pediatric Patients with Repaired Transposition of the Great Arteries

2024· article· en· W4404384383 on OpenAlexaff
Devin Chetan, Navjot Gill, Vivian P. Tassos, Christopher Z. Lam, Shi‐Joon Yoo, Israel Valverde, Mike Seed

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGreat arteriesMagnetic resonance imagingCardiac magnetic resonanceCardiologyTransposition (logic)Cardiac magnetic resonance imagingPerfusionInternal medicineRadiologyHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients who underwent arterial switch operation (ASO) for d-transposition of the great arteries (TGA) are at increased risk for early myocardial ischemia. Stress perfusion cardiac MR (SPCMR) is used as a non-invasive tool for risk stratification but interpretation is often challenging. Hypothesis: There is significant interobserver variability in SPCMR image interpretation in patients with repaired TGA. Aims: 1. Determine incidence and severity of adverse effects of stress agents. 2. Evaluate incidence of positive SPCMR. 3. Assess agreement amongst reviewers in image interpretation. Methods: Patients with repaired TGA with SPCMR imaging from 2013 to 2024 were reviewed. Three patients with previous coronary intervention and one with severe chest pain after adenosine, unable to complete SPCMR, were excluded. 61 studies were performed in 56 patients. Images were independently reviewed by two investigators blinded to initial interpretation and clinical outcome. Perfusion defects were displayed on a circumferential polar plot using standard LV segmentation. Results: Median (IQR) age was 15 (11-17) years, weight 55 (36-68) kg, and BSA 1.6 (1.2-1.8) m2. Max heart rate was 110 (100-125) and systolic BP 127 (116-138). Eleven (20%) patients had cardiac symptoms, chest pain in 9 (16%), syncope in 1 (2%), pallor and distress in 1 (2%) infant. Adverse effects from SPCMR in 8/52 (15%) adenosine, 2/4 (50%) dobutamine, and 0/6 (0%) regadenoson were minor and resolved on stress completion. Six (10%) studies were initially interpreted as suspicious (n=5) or definitive (n=1) perfusion defect (Figure). No LGE was detected. Original interpretation did not match blinded reviews for 6 cases (Figure). Blinded reviewers agreed on 3 negative cases but interpretation differed in the other 3 cases (Figure). Conclusions: SPCMR is safe and feasible. Significant interobserver variability highlights the challenges in qualitative SPCMR interpretation for TGA. Quantitative perfusion may reduce interobserver variability. Larger multicenter studies would be helpful in further elucidating the risk profile of patient characteristics and coronary artery arrangements to determine whether routine use of SPCMR is warranted for TGA patients.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→