OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and left ventricular mass (LVM) measurements made using 3 fully automated deep learning (DL) algorithms are accurate and interchangeable and can be used to classify ventricular function and risk-stratify patients as accurately as an expert. BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence is increasingly used to assess cardiac function and LVM from cardiac magnetic resonance images. METHODS: Two hundred patients were identified from a registry of individuals who underwent vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance. LVEF, LVM, and RVEF were determined using 3 fully automated commercial DL algorithms and by a clinical expert (CLIN) using conventional methodology. Additionally, LVEF values were classified according to clinically important ranges: <35%, 35% to 50%, and ≥50%. Both ejection fraction values and classifications made by the DL ejection fraction approaches were compared against CLIN ejection fraction reference. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of CLIN and each of the DL classifications to predict major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Excellent correlations were seen for each DL-LVEF compared with CLIN-LVEF (r = 0.83-0.93). Good correlations were present between DL-LVM and CLIN-LVM (r = 0.75-0.85). Modest correlations were observed between DL-RVEF and CLIN-RVEF (r = 0.59-0.68). A >10% error between CLIN and DL ejection fraction was present in 5% to 18% of cases for the left ventricle and 23% to 43% for the right ventricle. LVEF classification agreed with CLIN-LVEF classification in 86%, 80%, and 85% cases for the 3 DL-LVEF approaches. There were no differences among the 4 approaches in associations with major adverse cardiovascular events for LVEF, LVM, and RVEF. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed good agreement between automated and expert-derived LVEF and similarly strong associations with outcomes, compared with an expert. However, the ability of these automated measurements to accurately classify left ventricular function for treatment decision remains limited. DL-LVM showed good agreement with CLIN-LVM. DL-RVEF approaches need further refinements.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and left ventricular mass (LVM) measurements made using 3 fully automated deep learning (DL) algorithms are accurate and interchangeable and can be used to classify ventricular function and risk-stratify patients as accurately as an expert. BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence is increasingly used to assess cardiac function and LVM from cardiac magnetic resonance images. METHODS: Two hundred patients were identified from a registry of individuals who underwent vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance. LVEF, LVM, and RVEF were determined using 3 fully automated commercial DL algorithms and by a clinical expert (CLIN) using conventional methodology. Additionally, LVEF values were classified according to clinically important ranges: <35%, 35% to 50%, and ≥50%. Both ejection fraction values and classifications made by the DL ejection fraction approaches were compared against CLIN ejection fraction reference. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of CLIN and each of the DL classifications to predict major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Excellent correlations were seen for each DL-LVEF compared with CLIN-LVEF (r = 0.83-0.93). Good correlations were present between DL-LVM and CLIN-LVM (r = 0.75-0.85). Modest correlations were observed between DL-RVEF and CLIN-RVEF (r = 0.59-0.68). A >10% error between CLIN and DL ejection fraction was present in 5% to 18% of cases for the left ventricle and 23% to 43% for the right ventricle. LVEF classification agreed with CLIN-LVEF classification in 86%, 80%, and 85% cases for the 3 DL-LVEF approaches. There were no differences among the 4 approaches in associations with major adverse cardiovascular events for LVEF, LVM, and RVEF. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed good agreement between automated and expert-derived LVEF and similarly strong associations with outcomes, compared with an expert. However, the ability of these automated measurements to accurately classify left ventricular function for treatment decision remains limited. DL-LVM showed good agreement with CLIN-LVM. DL-RVEF approaches need further refinements.
Authors: Christopher A Miller; Peter Jordan; Alex Borg; Rachel Argyle; David Clark; Keith Pearce; Matthias Schmitt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jordi S Dahl; Mackram F Eleid; Hector I Michelena; Christopher G Scott; Rakesh M Suri; Hartzell V Schaff; Patricia A Pellikka Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Manar D Samad; Gregory J Wehner; Mohammad R Arbabshirani; Linyuan Jing; Andrew J Powell; Tal Geva; Christopher M Haggerty; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Steffen E Petersen; Nay Aung; Mihir M Sanghvi; Filip Zemrak; Kenneth Fung; Jose Miguel Paiva; Jane M Francis; Mohammed Y Khanji; Elena Lukaschuk; Aaron M Lee; Valentina Carapella; Young Jin Kim; Paul Leeson; Stefan K Piechnik; Stefan Neubauer Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Timothy J W Dawes; Antonio de Marvao; Wenzhe Shi; Tristan Fletcher; Geoffrey M J Watson; John Wharton; Christopher J Rhodes; Luke S G E Howard; J Simon R Gibbs; Daniel Rueckert; Stuart A Cook; Martin R Wilkins; Declan P O'Regan Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 11.105