Why the study?
Biomedical repositories offer prospectively collected cardiac imaging, but these data are unlabeled, creating barriers to their use in supervised machine learning.
Does a weakly supervised deep learning model improve classification of bicuspid aortic valves from unlabeled cardiac MRIs compared to a supervised model trained on hand-labeled data?
Cohort (n=9,230)
Does a weakly supervised deep learning model improve classification of bicuspid aortic valves from unlabeled cardiac MRIs compared to a supervised model trained on hand-labeled data?
A weakly supervised deep learning model trained on unlabeled cardiac MRIs can accurately classify bicuspid aortic valves and identify patients at increased risk for major adverse cardiac events.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support automated BAV risk stratification on MRI; leaves open whether weakly supervised models outperform supervised classification.
Biomedical repositories such as the UK Biobank provide increasing access to prospectively collected cardiac imaging, however these data are unlabeled, which creates barriers to their use in supervised machine learning. We develop a weakly supervised deep learning model for classification of aortic valve malformations using up to 4,000 unlabeled cardiac MRI sequences. Instead of requiring highly curated training data, weak supervision relies on noisy heuristics defined by domain experts to programmatically generate large-scale, imperfect training labels. For aortic valve classification, models trained with imperfect labels substantially outperform a supervised model trained on hand-labeled MRIs. In an orthogonal validation experiment using health outcomes data, our model identifies individuals with a 1.8-fold increase in risk of a major adverse cardiac event. This work formalizes a deep learning baseline for aortic valve classification and outlines a general strategy for using weak supervision to train machine learning models using unlabeled medical images at scale.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fries et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) (n=9,230). Model-classified bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. Model-classified tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4, p=8.83e-05).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: