1,721,040 research outputs found

    Objective selection of short-axis slices for automated quantification of left ventricular size and function by cardiovascular magnetic resonance

    Full text link
    Background: Quantification of left ventricular (LV) volume from cardiovascular magnetic resonance images relies on subjective and often challenging selection of short-axis (SAX) slices. We hypothesized that this could be solved by defining mitral annular (MA) plane and apex in long-axis (LAX) views, which could be combined with automated LV volume analysis that does not rely on manual tracing of the endocardial border. Methods: SAX images from 50 subjects were analyzed using custom software. LV apex and insertion points of the mitral leaflets were marked on LAX views and used to approximate MA plane. End-systolic and end-diastolic LV volumes (ESV, EDV) were measured while including only slices or their parts located between MA plane and LV apex. Endocardial borders were automatically detected using our previously validated algorithm and also manually traced to obtain reference values. Results: Selection of anatomic landmarks in LAX views allowed automated measurement of LV volumes without the need for subjective slice selection. Intertechnique comparisons resulted in high correlations (EDV: r. = 0.95; ESV: r. = 0.96) and small biases (1 and 9 ml). Combined three-dimensional displays of LAX and SAX views with the MA plane showed that in 7/10 worst cases, intertechnique discordance was due to incorrect manual tracing at LV base that erroneously included part of atrial cavity in LV volume or excluded part of LV cavity, i.e., incorrect reference values. Conclusion: Defining the MA plane and apex in the LAX views obviates the need for subjective slice selection and eliminates errors in LV volume measurements

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore