Three-dimensional left atrial strain from retrospective gated computed tomography: Comparison with speckle-tracking echocardiography in patients with aortic stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) left atrial (LA) deformation assessment beyond the two-dimensional (2D) apical views circumvents atrial foreshortening and can be quantified from four-dimensional (4D) retrospective gated computed tomography (CT) using novel feature tracking methods.However, the consistency between CTderived 3D and echocardiographic 2D peak left atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) has not been reported.We aimed to compare CT-derived 3D and echocardiographic 2D PALS in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).Methods: Eighty patients (81.8 5.8 years, 30 % female) who underwent CT and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) before TAVI were included.CT images were reconstructed at 5 % increments over the R-R interval.4D CTderived deformation was evaluated using novel feature tracking, from which 2D and 3D PALS CT were measured and compared with 2D PALS TTE .Results: 2D PALS TTE and 2D PALS CT measurements were strongly correlated (Pearson coefficient = 0.84) and comparable (mean bias = -0.8;95 % confidence interval, CI: -1.9 to 0.3), whereas 2D PALS TTE exhibited systematic overestimation compared with 3D PALS CT (mean bias = -3.6;95 % CI: -4.7 to -2.5; P < 0.001).3D PALS CT and 2D PALS TTE exhibited comparable correlations with exercise capacity and quality of life scores and prediction of elevated brain natriuretic peptide (area under the curve, AUC: 0.84, 0.79, respectively) and diastolic filling pressures (AUC: 0.65, 0.69, respectively).Conclusion: 2D PALS CT and 2D PALS TTE showed good agreement, whereas 2D PALS TTE was systemically larger than 3D PALS CT which may be attributed to atrial foreshortening.3D PALS CT circumvents limitations of 2D echocardiography and may offer adjunctive evaluation of atrial reservoir function in patients with valvular heart disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".