Why the study?
Multi-view MI detection using echocardiography frequently encounters missing views, while existing fusion methods lack adaptability to varying view quality or hinder real-time application.
A novel machine learning approach combining Transformer and GNN architectures with dynamic Dirichlet weighting effectively detects myocardial infarction from incomplete multi-view echocardiography data with 92.31% accuracy.
May support MI detection from incomplete echocardiography; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Multi-view myocardial infarction (MI) detection often relies on electrocardiogram (ECG) data, which suffers from noise sensitivity and limited early diagnostic value. Echocardiography provides richer temporal-spatial information but frequently encounters missing views due to clinical acquisition constraints. Existing fusion methods typically adopt static or overly complex dynamic weighting, limiting their adaptability to varying view quality and hindering real-time applicability. To this end, this paper proposes a view completion method based on a dual-branch gating structure, combining Transformer and Graph Neural Network (GNN) to complete incomplete multi-view information. Specifically, the model uses the Transformer encoder to model global temporal dependencies, introduces GNN to strengthen the local structural relationship between views, and uses the gating mechanism to achieve collaborative completion of the aforementioned two core components. Furthermore, this paper designs an uncertainty-driven dynamic weighted fusion strategy based on Dirichlet distribution, which can adaptively adjust the fusion weights according to the prediction confidence of each view, overcoming the limitations of traditional static weighting. Experiments on the HMC-QU dataset show that the proposed method achieves 92.31% accuracy, 90.00% precision, and 100.00% specificity, outperforming state-of-the-art models and demonstrating strong potential for clinical deployment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: