Key result
Fully automated AI aortic root segmentation yields excellent repeatability for flow indices vs human segmentation.
Why the study?
Flow assessment with CMR provides important physiologic and clinical markers, but post-processing remains labor- and time-intensive.
Does AI-based automated segmentation of phase contrast MRI provide comparable flow quantification to manual segmentation in patients with aortic root images?
Observational (n=125)
Yes
Does AI-based automated segmentation of phase contrast MRI provide comparable flow quantification to manual segmentation in patients with aortic root images?
p-value: p=<0.001
AI-based automated segmentation of aortic root phase contrast MRI provides clinically repeatable simple and complex flow indices comparable to manual segmentation, though some complex indices show significant bias.
May support AI automation for aortic flow quantification in practice; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
(1) Background and Objectives: Flow assessment using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides important implications in determining physiologic parameters and clinically important markers. However, post-processing of CMR images remains labor- and time-intensive. This study aims to assess the validity and repeatability of fully automated segmentation of phase contrast velocity-encoded aortic root plane. (2) Materials and Methods: Aortic root images from 125 patients are segmented by artificial intelligence (AI), developed using convolutional neural networks and trained with a multicentre cohort of 160 subjects. Derived simple flow indices (forward and backward flow, systolic flow and velocity) and complex indices (aortic maximum area, systolic flow reversal ratio, flow displacement, and its angle change) were compared with those derived from manual contours. (3) Results: AI-derived simple flow indices yielded excellent repeatability compared to human segmentation (p < 0.001), with an insignificant level of bias. Complex flow indices feature good to excellent repeatability (p < 0.001), with insignificant levels of bias except flow displacement angle change and systolic retrograde flow yielding significant levels of bias (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). (4) Conclusions: Automated flow quantification using aortic root images is comparable to human segmentation and has good to excellent repeatability. However, flow helicity and systolic retrograde flow are associated with a significant level of bias. Overall, all parameters show clinical repeatability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Aortic flow assessment (n=125). Fully automated AI segmentation vs. Manual contours (human segmentation) was evaluated on Repeatability of simple and complex flow indices (p=<0.001). Fully automated AI segmentation of aortic root images yielded excellent repeatability for simple and complex flow indices compared to human segmentation (p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: