Literature DB >> 16488845

Comparing cardiac ejection fraction estimation algorithms without a gold standard.

Matthew A Kupinski1, John W Hoppin, Joshua Krasnow, Seth Dahlberg, Jeffrey A Leppo, Michael A King, Eric Clarkson, Harrison H Barrett.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Imaging and estimation of left ventricular function have major diagnostic and prognostic importance in patients with coronary artery disease. It is vital that the method used to estimate cardiac ejection fraction (EF) allows the observer to best perform this task. To measure task-based performance, one must clearly define the task in question, the observer performing the task, and the patient population being imaged. In this report, the task is to accurately and precisely measure cardiac EF, and the observers are human-assisted computer algorithms that analyze the images and estimate cardiac EF. It is very difficult to measure the performance of an observer by using clinical data because estimation tasks typically lack a gold standard. A solution to this "no-gold-standard" problem recently was proposed, called regression without truth (RWT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results of three different software packages used to analyze gated, cardiac, and nuclear medicine images, each of which uses a different algorithm to estimate a patient's cardiac EF, are compared. The three methods are the Emory method, Quantitative Gated Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomographic method, and the Wackers-Liu Circumferential Quantification method. The same set of images is used as input to each of the three algorithms. Data were analyzed from the three different algorithms by using RWT to determine which produces the best estimates of cardiac EF in terms of accuracy and precision. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In performing this study, three different consistency checks were developed to ensure that the RWT method is working properly. The Emory method of estimating EF slightly outperformed the other two methods. In addition, the RWT method passed all three consistency checks, garnering confidence in the method and its application to clinical data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16488845      PMCID: PMC2464280          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2005.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  25 in total

1.  Evaluation of left ventricular wall motion, volumes, and ejection fraction by gated myocardial tomography with technetium 99m-labeled tetrofosmin: a comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  P Vaduganathan; Z X He; G W Vick; J J Mahmarian; M S Verani
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Left ventricular function and perfusion from gated SPECT perfusion images: an integrated method.

Authors:  T L Faber; C D Cooke; R D Folks; J P Vansant; K J Nichols; E G DePuey; R I Pettigrew; E V Garcia
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes in heart failure by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance; are they interchangeable?

Authors:  N G Bellenger; M I Burgess; S G Ray; A Lahiri; A J Coats; J G Cleland; D J Pennell
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  Latent class modeling approaches for assessing diagnostic error without a gold standard: with applications to p53 immunohistochemical assays in bladder tumors.

Authors:  P S Albert; L M McShane; J H Shih
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Prediction of myocardial infarction versus cardiac death by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: risk stratification by the amount of stress-induced ischemia and the poststress ejection fraction.

Authors:  T Sharir; G Germano; X Kang; H C Lewin; R Miranda; I Cohen; R D Agafitei; J D Friedman; D S Berman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes from gated blood pool tomography: comparison between two automatic algorithms that work in three-dimensional space.

Authors:  C Vanhove; P R Franken
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Gated myocardial perfusion tomography for the assessment of left ventricular function and volumes: comparison with echocardiography.

Authors:  E Cwajg; J Cwajg; Z X He; W S Hwang; F Keng; S F Nagueh; M S Verani
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, and regional wall motion calculated with gated technetium-99m tetrofosmin SPECT in reperfused acute myocardial infarction at super-acute phase: comparison with left ventriculography.

Authors:  M Abe; Y Kazatani; H Fukuda; H Tatsuno; H Habara; H Shinbata
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Incremental prognostic value of post-stress left ventricular ejection fraction and volume by gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography.

Authors:  T Sharir; G Germano; P B Kavanagh; S Lai; I Cohen; H C Lewin; J D Friedman; M J Zellweger; D S Berman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1999-09-07       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT with Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi: comparison with first-pass radionuclide angiography.

Authors:  Z X He; E Cwajg; J S Preslar; J J Mahmarian; M S Verani
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.952

View more
  9 in total

1.  Comparison of different segmentation approaches without using gold standard. Application to the estimation of the left ventricle ejection fraction from cardiac cine MRI sequences.

Authors:  Jessica Lebenberg; Irène Buvat; Mireille Garreau; Christopher Casta; Constantin Constantinidès; Jean Cousty; Alexandre Cochet; Stéphanie Jehan-Besson; Christophe Tilmant; Muriel Lefort; Elodie Roullot; Laurent Najman; Laurent Sarry; Patrick Clarysse; Alain de Cesare; Alain Lalande; Frédérique Frouin
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2011

2.  Bayesian framework inspired no-reference region-of-interest quality measure for brain MRI images.

Authors:  Michael Osadebey; Marius Pedersen; Douglas Arnold; Katrina Wendel-Mitoraj
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-06-13

3.  No-gold-standard evaluation of image-acquisition methods using patient data.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Eric Frey
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03-10

4.  A no-gold-standard technique for objective assessment of quantitative nuclear-medicine imaging methods.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Brian Caffo; Eric C Frey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Na Song; Brian Caffo; Eric C Frey
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2015-04-13

6.  Practical no-gold-standard evaluation framework for quantitative imaging methods: application to lesion segmentation in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Esther Mena; Brian Caffo; Saeed Ashrafinia; Arman Rahmim; Eric Frey; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-03-03

7.  Task-based evaluation of segmentation algorithms for diffusion-weighted MRI without using a gold standard.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Matthew A Kupinski; Jeffrey J Rodríguez; Renu M Stephen; Alison T Stopeck
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Improved Estimation of Cardiac Function Parameters Using a Combination of Independent Automated Segmentation Results in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Jessica Lebenberg; Alain Lalande; Patrick Clarysse; Irene Buvat; Christopher Casta; Alexandre Cochet; Constantin Constantinidès; Jean Cousty; Alain de Cesare; Stephanie Jehan-Besson; Muriel Lefort; Laurent Najman; Elodie Roullot; Laurent Sarry; Christophe Tilmant; Frederique Frouin; Mireille Garreau
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A Bayesian approach to tissue-fraction estimation for oncological PET segmentation.

Authors:  Ziping Liu; Joyce C Mhlanga; Richard Laforest; Paul-Robert Derenoncourt; Barry A Siegel; Abhinav K Jha
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 3.609

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.