ArticleEcho research and practice2024
Reproducibility of semi-quantitative assessment of aortic valve calcification and valve motion on echocardiography: a small-scale study.
Article in Echo research and practice, 2024. 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.
- DCFFNet: A New Dual-channel Cross-Feature Fusion Net for Evaluating the Degree of Aortic Valve Calcification Based on Echocardiographic Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAortic stenosis (AS) is the most common degenerative valve disease in high income countries. While hemodynamic metrics are commonly used to assess severity of stenosis, they are impacted by loading conditions and stroke volume and are often discordant. Anatomic valve assessments such as aortic valve calcification (AVC) and valve motion (VM) during transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) can offer clues to disease severity. The reliability of these semi-quantitatively assessed anatomic imaging parameters is unknown.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of semi-quantitative assessment of AVC and valve VM on TTE. TTEs representing a range of AS severities were identified. The degree of calcification of the aortic valve and the degree of restricted VM were assessed in standard fashion. AVC scores and valve motion were assessed by readers with varied training levels blinded to the severity of AS. Correlation and inter-reader reliability between readers were assessed.
results420 assessments (210 each for AVC and VM) were collected for 35 TTEs. Correlation of AVC for imaging trainees (fellows and students, respectively), ranged from 0.49 (95% CI 0.18-0.70) to 0.62 (95% CI 0.36-0.79) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.30-0.76) to 0.54 (95% CI 0.25-0.74) for VM. Correlation of anatomic assessments between echocardiographer-assigned AVC grades was r = 0.76 (95% CI 0.57-0.87)). The correlation between echocardiographer-assigned assessment of VM was r = 0.73 (95% CI 0.53-0.86), p < 0.00001 for both. For echocardiographer AVC assessment, weighted kappa was 0.52 (0.32-0.72), valve motion weighted kappa was 0.60 (0.42-0.78).
conclusionThere was good inter-reader correlation between TTE-based semi-quantitative assessment of AVC and VM when assessed by board certified echocardiographers. There was modest inter-reader reliability of semi-quantitative assessments of AVC and VM between board certified echocardiographers. Inter-reader correlation and reliability between imaging trainees was lower. More reliable methods to assess TTE based anatomic assessments are needed in order to accurately track disease progression. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: STUDY00003100.
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.