| Literature DB >> 35242848 |
Feifei Yang1,2,3, Jiuwen Zhu4, Junfeng Wang5, Liwei Zhang6, Wenjun Wang1, Xu Chen1,7, Xixiang Lin1,7, Qiushuang Wang6, Daniel Burkhoff8, S Kevin Zhou4,9, Kunlun He1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the most common valve lesion worldwide. However, the quantitative assessment of MR severity based on current guidelines is challenging and time-consuming; strict adherence to applying these guidelines is therefore relatively infrequent. We aimed to develop an automatic, reliable and reproducible artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system to assist physicians in grading MR severity based on color video Doppler echocardiography via a self-supervised learning (SSL) algorithm.Entities:
Keywords: Mitral regurgitation (MR); color Doppler echocardiography; mitral regurgitation grading (MR grading); self-supervised learning (SSL)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242848 PMCID: PMC8825545 DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-3449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1Flow chart for data selection. Patient selection for testing, training, and validation was described. MR, mitral regurgitation.
Figure 2Automatic self-supervised feature extraction framework. (A) Proxy task for color Doppler self-supervised feature extraction. (a) represents image transformation in data pre-processing, which includes random color distortion and Gaussian blur. (b) Patch rearrangement, which serves for structure recovery. Z1 and Z2 follows an equal rearrangement. (c) Siamese-Octad 2D ResNet-34 is employed for feature extraction from each single image patch, which leads to feature vector as output. (d) FC layer represents fully-connected layer, and it outputs the category possibility of each possible permutation. L and L indicate structure recovery loss and color transform consistency loss, respectively. (B) Transfer to downstream multi-task network. (a) ROI cropping represents central area cropping. (b) Siamese-Octad 2D ResNet-34 is employed for feature extraction from each single video frame, which leads to feature vector as output. (c) LSTM captures the information of previous frames for better feature representation. (d) Skip connection represents feature concatenation of each corresponding outputs of green block and red block. (e) 2D segmentation decoder aims to decode low-level feature to predicted segmentation images. (f) and (g) represent feature pooling and feature stack along time dimension. (h) decodes feature into vector of size of frame × w × h. (i) indicates average pooling layer, which outputs one-hot classification prediction. L and L indicate segmentation loss and classification loss, respectively. 2D, two-dimensional; FC, fully connected layer; ROI, region of interest; LSTM, long short-term memory.
Figure 3Indicator illustration example. Six indexes (MR jet length/LA length, MR jet length, LA width, LA area, MR jet area, MR jet area/LA area) are evaluated by our self-supervised model. Green line represents MR jet area, dark blue line represents left atrial area, light blue lines represent LA width, MR jet length, LA length. MR, mitral regurgitation; LA, left atrium.
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristics | Analysis/test | Training | Validation | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient number | 148 | 592 | 148 | 888 |
| Age (years), median [IQR] | 71 [61, 81] | 69 [59, 78] | 65 [57, 79] | 69 [59, 79] |
| Male, n (%) | 98 (66.2) | 386 (65.2) | 101 (68.2) | 585 (65.9) |
| Etiology, n (%) | ||||
| Primary MR | 8 (5.4) | 30 (5.1) | 12 (8.1) | 50 (5.6) |
| Secondary MR | 140 (94.6) | 562 (94.9) | 136 (91.9) | 838 (94.4) |
| Comorbidities, n (%) | ||||
| Hypertension | 84 (56.8) | 320 (54.1) | 82 (55.4) | 486 (54.7) |
| Hyperlipidemia | 35 (23.6) | 156 (26.4) | 32 (21.6) | 223 (25.1) |
| Diabetes | 27 (18.2) | 115 (19.4) | 30 (20.3) | 172 (19.4) |
| Coronary heart disease | 65 (43.9) | 272 (45.9) | 77 (52.1) | 414 (46.6) |
| Myocardial infarction | 27 (18.2) | 143 (24.2) | 38 (25.6) | 208 (23.4) |
| HCM | 4 (2.7) | 7 (1.2) | 4 (2.7) | 15 (1.9) |
| DCM | 2 (1.4) | 10 (1.7) | 2 (1.4) | 14 (1.6) |
| Lesion severity, n (%) | ||||
| Mild | 77 (52.0) | 308 (52.0) | 77 (52.0) | 462 (52.0) |
| Moderate | 50 (33.8) | 200 (33.8) | 50 (33.8) | 300 (33.8) |
| Severe | 21 (14.2) | 84 (14.2) | 21 (14.2) | 126 (14.2) |
| Echocardiographic, median [IQR] | ||||
| LVEF (%) | 56 [38, 60] | 52 [39, 59] | 55 [36, 59] | 54 [38, 59] |
| LVEDV (mL) | 107 [90, 144] | 114 [90, 139] | 118 [105, 147] | 107 [90, 144] |
| LVESV (mL) | 48 [36, 80] | 54 [38, 78] | 59 [42, 85] | 53 [38, 78] |
| LVEDD (mm) | 47 [43, 53] | 48 [45, 54] | 49 [45, 55] | 48 [45, 54] |
| LA (mm) | 40 [34, 44] | 40 [35, 43] | 41 [36, 44] | 40 [35, 44] |
| RA (mm) | 32 [30, 36] | 33 [30, 36] | 33 [30, 35] | 33 [30, 36] |
| RV (mm) | 31 [28, 34] | 32 [29, 34] | 32 [30, 35] | 32 [29, 34] |
MR, mitral regurgitation; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension; LA, left atrium; RA, right atrium RV, right ventricular.
Evaluation of the segmentation algorithm in validation and test datasets
| Dataset | Method | Max frame recognition ACC | DICE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MR jet | LA | AVG | DICE↑ | |||
| Validation | ResNet-UNet | 92.0 | 0.811 | 0.848 | 0.829 | – |
| CD-SSL | 93.1 | 0.863 | 0.920 | 0.892 | 0.063 | |
| Test | ResNet-UNet | 93.5 | 0.767 | 0.776 | 0.772 | – |
| CD-SSL | 95.9 | 0.821 | 0.884 | 0.853 | 0.081 | |
“ResNet-UNet” indicates residual U-shaped network, which is our baseline model; “CD-SSL” indicates our segmentation framework which elaborates SSL; “max frame recognition ACC” indicates the max MR jet area frame recognition accuracy; “DICE” indicates segmentation DICE coefficient; “AVG” and “DICE↑” indicate the average dice coefficient of MR and LA and the improvement compared to the conventional ResNet-UNet model. ACC, accuracy; DICE, dice similarity coefficient; MR, mitral regurgitation; LA, left atrium; AVG, average; ResNet-UNet, Residual U-shape Network; CD-SSL, color doppler self-supervised learning.
Figure 4Box plot figure for six indexes. The relatedness between each index and ground truth. MR, mitral regurgitation; LA, left atrium.
Figure 5Performances of six indexes generated by the AI segmentation model in classification of moderate-severe vs. non-moderate-severe in MR patients based on ROC curves. AI, artificial intelligence; MR, mitral regurgitation; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
Performances of physicians without and with support of AI in classification of moderate-severe vs. non-moderate-severe in MR patients
| Physician group | Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) | Specificity (%) (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without AI | With AI | Without AI | With AI | ||
| All physicians (n=9) | 77.0 (70.9–82.1) | 86.7 (80.3–91.2) | 91.5 (87.8–94.1) | 90.5 (86.7–93.2) | |
| Junior physicians (n=3) | 84.0 (72.6–91.3) | 95.8 (94.3–96.9) | 87.4 (78.9–92.8) | 84.4 (82.2–86.4) | |
| Intermediate physicians (n=3) | 77.5 (68.7–84.3) | 85.4 (76.1–91.6) | 93.1 (89.7–95.4) | 91.3 (89.3–93.0) | |
| Senior physicians (n=3) | 69.5 (68.7–70.2) | 78.9 (74.7–82.5) | 93.9 (92.4–95.2) | 95.7 (93.4–97.2) | |
AI, artificial intelligence; MR, mitral regurgitation.