MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Left ventricular ejection fraction using a simplified wall motion score based on mid-parasternal short axis and apical four-chamber views for non-cardiologists

2024· other· en· W6959219798 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjection fractionParasternal lineHypokinesiaContractilityUltrasoundShort axisCorrelation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There is a need for a convenient, yet reliable method to assess left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with point-of-care ultrasound study (POCUS). We aim to validate a novel and simplified wall motion score LVEF based on the analysis of a simplified combination of echocardiographic views. Methods In this retrospective study, transthoracic echocardiograms of randomly selected patients were analysed by the standard 16-segments wall motion score index (WMSI) to derive the reference semi-quantitative LVEF. To develop our semi-quantitative simplified-views method, a limited combination of imaging views and only 4 segments per view were tested: (1) A combination of the three parasternal short-axis views (PSAX BASE, MID-, APEX); (2) A combination of the three apical views (apical 2-chamber, 3-chamber and 4-chamber) and (3) A more limited combination of PSAX-MID and apical 4-chamber is called the MID-4CH. Global LVEF is obtained by averaging segmental EF based on contractility (normal = 60%, hypokinesia = 40%, and akinesia = 10%). Accuracy of the novel semi-quantitative simplified-views WMS method compared to the reference WMSI was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis and correlation was assessed in both emergency physicians and cardiologists. Results In the 46 patients using the 16 segments WMSI method, the mean LVEF was 34 ± 10%. Among the three combinations of the two or three imaging views analysed, the MID-4CH had the best correlation with the reference method (r2 = 0.90) with very good agreement (mean LVEF bias = − 0.2%) and precision (± 3.3%). Conclusions Cardiac POCUS by emergency physicians and other non-cardiologists is a decisive therapeutic and prognostic tool. A simplified semi-quantitative WMS method to assess LVEF using the easiest technically achievable combination of mid-parasternal and apical four-chamber views provides a good approximative estimate for both non-cardiologist emergency physicians and cardiologists.

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)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 venueFigshareSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207