ArticleProceedings. IEEE Western New York Image and Signal Processing Workshop2018
LEFT VENTRICULAR EJECTION FRACTION: COMPARISON BETWEEN TRUE VOLUME-BASED MEASUREMENTS AND AREA-BASED ESTIMATES.
Article in Proceedings. IEEE Western New York Image and Signal Processing Workshop, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Statistical Shape Model Approach for Computing Left Ventricle Volume and Ejection Fraction Using Multi-plane Ultrasound Images.VipIMAGE 2019 : proceedings of the VII ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Vision and Medical Image Processing, October 16-18, 2019, Porto, Portugal. VipIMAGE (Conference) (2019 : Porto, Portugal) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a critical measure of cardiac health commonly acquired in clinical practice, which serves as the basis for cardiovascular therapeutic treatment. Ultrasound (US) imaging of the heart is the most common, least expensive, reliable and non-invasive modality to assess LVEF. Cardiologists, in practice, persistently use 2D US images to provide visual estimates of LVEF, which are based on 2D information embedded in the US images by examining the area changes in LV blood pool between diastole and systole. There has been some anecdotal evidence that visual estimation of the LVEF based on the area changes of the LV blood pool significantly underestimate true LVEF. True LVEF should be calculated based on changes in LV volumes between diastole and systole. In this project, we utilized both idealized models of the LV geometry - a truncated prolate spheroid (TPS) and a paraboloid model - to represent the LV anatomy. Cross-sectional areas and volumes of simulated LV shapes using both models were calculated to compare the LVEF. Further, a LV reconstruction algorithm was employed to build the LV blood pool volume in both systole and diastole from multi-plane 2D US imaging data. Our mathematical models yielded an area-based LVEF of 41 4.7% and a volume-based LVEF of 55 ±5.7%, while the 3D recon-struction model showed an area-based LVEF of 35 11.9% and a volume-based LVEF of 48.0 ± 14.0%. In summary, the area-based LVEF using all three models ±underestimate the volume-based LVEF using corresponding models by 13% to 14%. This preliminary study confirms both mathematically and empirically that area-based LVEF estimates indeed underestimate the true volume-based LVEF measurements and suggests that true volumetric measurements of the LV blood pool must be computed to correctly assess cardiac LVEF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.