Key result
The fully automated AI-based framework achieved a wall motion classification accuracy of 76.71% with 100% sensitivity, and demonstrated high agreement with experts for ventricular segmentation.
Why the study?
Does an AI-based framework accurately perform ventricular segmentation, quantification, and wall motion classification compared to expert manual assessment in patients undergoing cine CMR?
Observational (n=146)
Single-blind
Yes
Does an AI-based framework accurately perform ventricular segmentation, quantification, and wall motion classification compared to expert manual assessment in patients undergoing cine CMR?
The proposed AI framework demonstrates high accuracy and reliability for automated ventricular segmentation, function quantification, and wall motion classification from cine CMR, showing potential for clinical practice integration.
Supports automated CMR analysis in research cohorts; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Background We present the clinical validation of an AI-based framework for automatic ventricular segmentation and quantification, and automatic wall motion classification from cine CMR. Methods The framework was evaluated using two datasets, the SCMR Consensus dataset and a cohort private dataset composed by 146 patients. The automatic segmentation of left ventricle (LV) of SCMR Consensus dataset was evaluated through Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). The ventricular function quantification was assessed by processing both datasets, measuring LV and right ventricle (RV) end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, ejection fraction (EF), and left ventricle mass (LVM). The validation was based on agreement indices, such as the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Automatic wall motion classification was performed using the cohort dataset, and assessed using confusion matrix metrics. Results The comparison between the proposed framework and experts' manual performances on ventricular segmentation and function quantification processes showed high levels of contouring overlap (DSC=0.72), and agreement (ICC > 0.96 and ICC > 0.81 for volumes and EFs of LV and RV, respectively, and ICC > 0.78 for LVM). The automatic wall motion analysis obtained a classification accuracy of 0.77, with a sensitivity value of 1.00, meaning no false negative.. Conclusions The validation results confirmed the proposed framework robustness and generalization capabilities. Moreover, our proposal demonstrated its potential for automatic wall motion classification in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular diseases (n=146). AI-based framework for ventricular segmentation and wall motion classification vs. Experts' manual performance was evaluated on Wall motion classification accuracy. The fully automated AI-based framework achieved a wall motion classification accuracy of 76.71% with 100% sensitivity, and demonstrated high agreement with experts for ventricular segmentation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: