Key result
A deep-learning AI method for automated LV global longitudinal strain measurement significantly reduced test-retest variability compared to manual readers (MDC 3.7-3.9 vs 5.2-5.5; P<.05).
Why the study?
Assessment of left ventricular function by echocardiography is hampered by modest test-retest reproducibility, which a novel deep learning AI method for automated LV global longitudinal strain might improve by reducing user-related variability.
Does a deep-learning AI method improve the precision and reproducibility of left ventricular global longitudinal strain measurements in echocardiograms compared to semiautomatic manual measurements?
Observational (n=72)
Yes
Does a deep-learning AI method improve the precision and reproducibility of left ventricular global longitudinal strain measurements in echocardiograms compared to semiautomatic manual measurements?
p-value: p=<.05
Deep-learning AI provides fast, automated, and highly reproducible measurements of left ventricular global longitudinal strain, reducing user-related variability and bias in echocardiography.
May reduce GLS test-retest variability; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
•Deep-learning AI provides efficient automated GLS measurements in echocardiograms.•Deep-learning AI produces consistent GLS measurements in repeated echocardiograms.•Automated GLS measurements using deep learning improve test-retest reproducibility. AimsAssessment of left ventricular (LV) function by echocardiography is hampered by modest test-retest reproducibility. A novel artificial intelligence (AI) method based on deep learning provides fully automated measurements of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and may improve the clinical utility of echocardiography by reducing user-related variability. The aim of this study was to assess within-patient test-retest reproducibility of LV GLS measured by the novel AI method in repeated echocardiograms recorded by different echocardiographers and to compare the results to manual measurements.MethodsTwo test-retest data sets (n = 40 and n = 32) were obtained at separate centers. Repeated recordings were acquired in immediate succession by 2 different echocardiographers at each center. For each data set, 4 readers measured GLS in both recordings using a semiautomatic method to construct test-retest interreader and intrareader scenarios. Agreement, mean absolute difference, and minimal detectable change (MDC) were compared to analyses by AI. In a subset of 10 patients, beat-to-beat variability in 3 cardiac cycles was assessed by 2 readers and AI.ResultsTest-retest variability was lower with AI compared with interreader scenarios (data set I: MDC = 3.7 vs 5.5, mean absolute difference = 1.4 vs 2.1, respectively; data set II: MDC = 3.9 vs 5.2, mean absolute difference = 1.6 vs 1.9, respectively; all P < .05). There was bias in GLS measurements in 13 of 24 test-retest interreader scenarios (largest bias, 3.2 strain units). In contrast, there was no bias in measurements by AI. Beat-to-beat MDCs were 1.5, 2.1, and 2.3 for AI and the 2 readers, respectively. Processing time for analyses of GLS by the AI method was 7.9 ± 2.8 seconds.ConclusionA fast AI method for automated measurements of LV GLS reduced test-retest variability and removed bias between readers in both test-retest data sets. By improving the precision and reproducibility, AI may increase the clinical utility of echocardiography. Assessment of left ventricular (LV) function by echocardiography is hampered by modest test-retest reproducibility. A novel artificial intelligence (AI) method based on deep learning provides fully automated measurements of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and may improve the clinical utility of echocardiography by reducing user-related variability. The aim of this study was to assess within-patient test-retest reproducibility of LV GLS measured by the novel AI method in repeated echocardiograms recorded by different echocardiographers and to compare the results to manual measurements. Two test-retest data sets (n = 40 and n = 32) were obtained at separate centers. Repeated recordings were acquired in immediate succession by 2 different echocardiographers at each center. For each data set, 4 readers measured GLS in both recordings using a semiautomatic method to construct test-retest interreader and intrareader scenarios. Agreement, mean absolute difference, and minimal detectable change (MDC) were compared to analyses by AI. In a subset of 10 patients, beat-to-beat variability in 3 cardiac cycles was assessed by 2 readers and AI. Test-retest variability was lower with AI compared with interreader scenarios (data set I: MDC = 3.7 vs 5.5, mean absolute difference = 1.4 vs 2.1, respectively; data set II: MDC = 3.9 vs 5.2, mean absolute difference = 1.6 vs 1.9, respectively; all P < .05). There was bias in GLS measurements in 13 of 24 test-retest interreader scenarios (largest bias, 3.2 strain units). In contrast, there was no bias in measurements by AI. Beat-to-beat MDCs were 1.5, 2.1, and 2.3 for AI and the 2 readers, respectively. Processing time for analyses of GLS by the AI method was 7.9 ± 2.8 seconds. A fast AI method for automated measurements of LV GLS reduced test-retest variability and removed bias between readers in both test-retest data sets. By improving the precision and reproducibility, AI may increase the clinical utility of echocardiography.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salte et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Left ventricular function assessment (n=72). Deep-learning artificial intelligence (AI) method vs. Semiautomatic method (manual measurements) was evaluated on Test-retest variability (minimal detectable change and mean absolute difference) (p=<.05). A deep-learning AI method for automated LV global longitudinal strain measurement significantly reduced test-retest variability compared to manual readers (MDC 3.7-3.9 vs 5.2-5.5; P<.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: