Key result
Automated AI tool for biventricular CMR segmentation shows excellent agreement with manual expert measurements.
Why the study?
Evaluating CMR studies is laborious and causes delays, and while AI automation is promising, evaluation of these tools in clinical practice has been limited.
Does an AI tool for automated segmentation of biventricular parameters on CMR provide comparable accuracy and faster processing times compared to manual segmentation in patients undergoing CMR?
Observational (n=462)
No
Does an AI tool for automated segmentation of biventricular parameters on CMR provide comparable accuracy and faster processing times compared to manual segmentation in patients undergoing CMR?
Effect estimate: ICC > 0.85
p-value: p=>0.05
An AI tool for automated biventricular CMR segmentation demonstrates excellent agreement with expert manual segmentation while significantly reducing processing time from approximately 29 minutes to under 90 seconds.
Introduction: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is of diagnostic and prognostic value in a range of cardiopulmonary conditions. Current methods for evaluating CMR studies are laborious and time-consuming, contributing to delays for patients. As the demand for CMR increases, there is a growing need to automate this process. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to CMR is promising, but the evaluation of these tools in clinical practice has been limited. This study assessed the clinical viability of an automatic tool for measuring cardiac volumes on CMR. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent CMR for any indication between January 2022 and October 2022 at a single tertiary centre were included prospectively. For each case, short-axis CMR images were segmented by the AI tool and manually to yield volume, mass and ejection fraction measurements for both ventricles. Automated and manual measurements were compared for agreement and the quality of the automated contours was assessed visually by cardiac radiologists. Results: -test). Intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis showed excellent agreement across all metrics (ICC > 0.85). The automated contours were evaluated visually in 251 cases, with agreement or minor disagreement in 229 cases (91.2%) and failed segmentation in only a single case (0.4%). The AI tool was able to provide automated contours in under 90 s. Conclusions: Automated segmentation of both ventricles on CMR by an automatic tool shows excellent agreement with manual segmentation performed by CMR experts in a retrospective real-world clinical cohort. Implementation of the tool could improve the efficiency of CMR reporting and reduce delays between imaging and diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salehi et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Any indication for cardiac magnetic resonance (n=462). AI tool for automated segmentation vs. Manual segmentation was evaluated on Agreement between automated and manual biventricular measurements (ICC > 0.85, p=>0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: