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.
Johnson et al. (Sun,) studied this question.