A Fully Automated Analysis Pipeline for 4D Flow MRI in the Aorta

Four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI has shown promise for the assessment of aortic hemodynamics. However, data analysis traditionally requires manual and time-consuming human input at several stages. This limits reproducibility and affects analysis workflows, such that large-cohort 4D flow studies are lacking. Here, a fully automated artificial intelligence (AI) 4D flow analysis pipeline was developed and evaluated in a cohort of over 350 subjects. The 4D flow MRI analysis pipeline integrated a series of previously developed and validated deep learning networks, which replaced traditionally manual processing tasks (background-phase correction, noise masking, velocity anti-aliasing, aorta 3D segmentation). Hemodynamic parameters (global aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV), peak velocity, flow energetics) were automatically quantified. The pipeline was evaluated in a heterogeneous single-center cohort of 379 subjects (age = 43.5 ± 18.6 years, 118 female) who underwent 4D flow MRI of the thoracic aorta (n = 147 healthy controls, n = 147 patients with a bicuspid aortic valve BAV, n = 10 with mechanical valve prostheses, n = 75 pediatric patients with hereditary aortic disease). Pipeline performance with BAV and control data was evaluated by comparing to manual analysis performed by two human observers. A fully automated 4D flow pipeline analysis was successfully performed in 365 of 379 patients (96%). Pipeline-based quantification of aortic hemodynamics was closely correlated with manual analysis results (peak velocity: r = 1.00, p < 0.001; PWV: r = 0.99, p < 0.001; flow energetics: r = 0.99, p < 0.001; overall r ≥ 0.99, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed close agreement for all hemodynamic parameters (bias 1-3%, limits of agreement 6-22%). Notably, limits of agreement between different human observers' quantifications were moderate (4-20%). In addition, the pipeline 4D flow analysis closely reproduced hemodynamic differences between age-matched adult BAV patients and controls (median peak velocity: 1.74 m/s automated or 1.76 m/s manual BAV vs. 1.31 auto. vs. 1.29 manu. controls, p < 0.005; PWV: 6.4-6.6 m/s all groups, any processing no significant differences; kinetic energy: 4.9 μJ auto. or 5.0 μJ manu. BAV vs. 3.1 μJ both control, p < 0.005). This study presents a framework for the complete automation of quantitative 4D flow MRI data processing with a failure rate of less than 5%, offering improved measurement reliability in quantitative 4D flow MRI. Future studies are warranted to reduced failure rates and evaluate pipeline performance across multiple centers.