Key result
Computerized CIMT algorithms were comparable to skilled analysts' manual segmentation, suggesting they can be used interchangeably for CIMT quantification and clinical outcome investigation.
Why the study?
An analysis of different computerized techniques for common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) measurement and their clinical impacts on the same patient data set was lacking.
Do computerized CIMT algorithms perform comparably to expert manual measurements for CIMT quantification and cardiovascular event prediction?
Observational (n=1,088)
Open-label
Yes
Do computerized CIMT algorithms perform comparably to expert manual measurements for CIMT quantification and cardiovascular event prediction?
Computerized CIMT algorithms perform comparably to expert manual measurements, suggesting they can be used interchangeably for clinical outcome investigation.
May support automated CIMT for research now but should not yet change practice; leaves open prospective outcome-equivalence confirmation.
Common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) is a commonly used marker for atherosclerosis and is often computed in carotid ultrasound images. An analysis of different computerized techniques for CIMT measurement and their clinical impacts on the same patient data set is lacking. Here we compared and assessed five computerized CIMT algorithms against three expert analysts' manual measurements on a data set of 1088 patients from two centers. Inter- and intra-observer variability was assessed, and the computerized CIMT values were compared with those manually obtained. The CIMT measurements were used to assess the correlation with clinical parameters, cardiovascular event prediction through a generalized linear model and the Kaplan-Meier hazard ratio. CIMT measurements obtained with a skilled analyst's segmentation and the computerized segmentation were comparable in statistical analyses, suggesting they can be used interchangeably for CIMT quantification and clinical outcome investigation. To facilitate future studies, the entire data set used is made publicly available for the community at http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/fpv535fss7.1.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meiburger et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Atherosclerosis (n=1,088). Computerized CIMT algorithms vs. Expert analysts' manual measurements was evaluated on CIMT quantification and clinical outcome investigation. Computerized CIMT algorithms were comparable to skilled analysts' manual segmentation, suggesting they can be used interchangeably for CIMT quantification and clinical outcome investigation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: