MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412686520 · doi:10.1016/j.jvc.2025.07.006

Veterinary echocardiographers’ preferences for image selection, timing, and caliper placement for left atrial two-dimensional size assessment in dogs: the BENEFIT project

2025· article· en· W4412686520 on OpenAlexaff
M.Y.-W. Kuo, M. Dirven, Jens Häggström, Sonya G. Gordon, Katja Höglund, Étienne Côté, T.-L. Lu, Mark Rishniw, Yong‐Wei Hung, Ingrid Ljungvall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersMinistry of Education
KeywordsCalipersMedicineSelection (genetic algorithm)Medical physicsMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate veterinary echocardiographers' preferences for assessing left atrial (LA) size in dogs using linear two-dimensional echocardiography, focusing on image selection, timing, caliper placement, and thresholds used for LA enlargement. A secondary aim was to explore the impact of experience and training on echocardiographers' linear two-dimensional measurements of LA size in dogs. ANIMALS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: A global online study was conducted, asking veterinary echocardiographers to measure LA size using static echocardiographic images. RESULTS: A total of 533 echocardiographers (63% non-specialists and 37% specialists, of which 43% were cardiology board certified) completed the study. Most echocardiographers (86%, n = 459/533) used a right parasternal short-axis (RPSAX) view for LA and aortic (Ao) measurements. Of these, 57% (n = 261/459) favored the same image angulation for performing measurements and 76% (n = 351/459) timed measurements at end-systole/early-diastole. Caliper placement near pulmonary venous inlets impacted their LA dimension measurements the most. Thirty-nine percent (n = 207/533) used right parasternal long-axis (RPLAX) views. The upper limit for LA enlargement varied across all commonly used methods. Training and experience level influenced interobserver variation for LA dimension measurements obtained from a RPLAX four-chamber view, but not from a RPSAX view. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Static images may not reflect real-time clinical settings or allow precise identification of anatomical structures. CONCLUSIONS: The RPSAX view was most favored for LA size assessment in dogs, but variations existed in image selection, timing, caliper placement, and threshold used for LA enlargement. Training and experience level influenced interobserver variation in LA dimension measurements obtained from a RPLAX four-chamber view.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary CardiologySame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207