Key result
DL-automated strain calculations achieve a ~0.75 average absolute difference in GLS versus experienced echocardiographers.
Why the study?
Manual outlining of regions of interest for speckle tracking echocardiography is labor intensive and may influence strain values, creating a need to simplify and standardize measurements.
Does a deep learning-based automated segmentation model provide comparable accuracy to experienced echocardiographers for left ventricular strain measurements?
Observational (n=605)
Yes
Does a deep learning-based automated segmentation model provide comparable accuracy to experienced echocardiographers for left ventricular strain measurements?
Mean Difference: 0.75 (95% CI 0.58–0.92)
Deep learning-assisted automated strain measurements are feasible and provide global longitudinal strain results within the interobserver variation of trained cardiologists.
May support automated GLS workflows; leaves open impact on outcomes and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) provides quantification of left ventricular (LV) deformation and is useful in the assessment of LV function. STE is increasingly being used clinically, and every effort to simplify and standardize STE is important. Manual outlining of regions of interest (ROIs) is labor intensive and may influence assessment of strain values. PURPOSE: We hypothesized that a deep learning (DL) model, trained on clinical echocardiographic exams, can be combined with a readily available echocardiographic analysis software, to automate strain calculation with comparable fidelity to trained cardiologists. METHODS: Data consisted of still frame echocardiographic images with cardiologist-defined ROIs from 672 clinical echocardiographic exams from a university hospital outpatient clinic. Exams included patients with ischemic heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, and conduction abnormalities, and some healthy subjects. An EfficientNetB1-based architecture was employed, and different techniques and properties including data set size, data quality, augmentations, and transfer learning were evaluated. DL predicted ROIs were reintroduced into commercially available echocardiographic analysis software to automatically calculate strain values. RESULTS: DL-automated strain calculations had an average absolute difference of 0.75 (95% CI 0.58-0.92) for global longitudinal strain (GLS), and 1.16 (95% CI 1.03-1.29) for single-projection longitudinal strain (LS), compared to operators. A Bland-Altman plot revealed no obvious bias, though there were fewer outliers in the lower average LS ranges. Techniques and data properties yielded no significant increase/decrease in performance. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that DL-assisted, automated strain measurements are feasible, and provide results within interobserver variation. Employing DL in echocardiographic analyses could further facilitate adoption of STE parameters in clinical practice and research, and improve reproducibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rogstadkjernet et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Various cardiac conditions (ischemic heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease) (n=605). Deep learning-automated strain calculation vs. Experienced echocardiographers (manual outlining) was evaluated on Average absolute difference (AAD) for global longitudinal strain (GLS) (AAD 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.92). Deep learning-automated strain calculations achieved an average absolute difference of 0.75 for global longitudinal strain compared to experienced echocardiographers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: