MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7127967947 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf784.238

Evaluation of genotype-phenotype correlation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy using radiomic analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance

2025· article· en· W7127967947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L Tassetti, F Lo Iacono, G Di Francesco, Valentina Corino, A Baggiano, A Pellizzon, F Fazzari, S Mushtaq, A Del Torto, F Cannata, Riccardo Maragna, Laura Fusini, valeria novelli, A Bonomi, G Pontone

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertrophic cardiomyopathyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiomicsCardiac magnetic resonanceRetrospective cohort studyCardiac magnetic resonance imagingCardiomyopathyTraining set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a recognized inheritance cardiomyopathy, with inconclusive evidences correlating genotype and phenotypic features. There is growing interest in correlating imaging features with specific genotypes, with the aim of a more accurate selection of patients eligible for genetic testing. Radiomics is an emerging research field aiming at improving diagnosis and prognosis using quantitative features extracted from medical images and it could prove useful in identifying features computed from Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) images associated to specific genotypes. Purpose to investigate if radiomic analysis of CMR can predict genotype positivity in a retrospective HCM cohort. Methods it is a monocentre retrospective study which enrolled all consecutive patients referred to our centre from 2014 to 2024 with diagnosis of HCM who performed CMR with cine images and genetic testing using next generation sequencing (NGS) technique. Radiomic analysis on cine long axis images included a dataset which was split into a training set (further into a learning and a validation subset) and a final test set (20% of the total dataset, used to actually test the final model obtained through training). Four hundred and seventy-four radiomic features were initially extracted. Three feature selection methods (LASSO, P Value and a combination of both) and five classifiers were tested in order to identify the most accurate model. A head to head comparison with Toronto and Mayo score was performed in the final test set. Results One hundred and nine HCM patients who performed genetic testing and CMR with imaging suitable for radiomic analysis were finally enrolled. Thirty-one patients (28%) had a positive genotype. Mean age of our cohort was 53.8±16.5 years, 34 (31%) were female. Positive genotype patients showed higher maximal wall thickness compared to negative genotype [respectively 19 (16;21) vs 16(14;18)mm, p=0.012]), more frequently a septal reverse morphology [16 (51.6%) vs 19(24.4%) patients, p=0.006], and higher amount of LGE [LGE/Left ventricle (LV) mass ratio 16.9(10.1;27.8)% vs 9.4(2.8;18)% calculated with 5 standard deviation method, p=0.002]. The final radiomic test set included 20 patients, whose 6 (30%) with positive genotype. Twenty-one of the 474 radiomic features initially extracted were selected (mainly shape, first order and texture features). The best-performing model (LASSO + SVM) achieved a balanced accuracy of 87.5%, a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 75%, with better performance compared with Toronto and Mayo score. Conclusion radiomic analysis of cine pre-contrast CMR imaging showed high sensitivity in negative genotype prediction in HCM, with better performance in a head to head comparison with Mayo and Toronto score. Radiomic features applied to CMR provide a novel, accurate and non-invasive approach to predict genotype in HCM and might act as a gatekeeper for genetic testing.clinical and imaging features HCM radiomic and clinical models comparison

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies→French-language works237,207→