Key result
Different image-processing settings induced average proportional differences in fetal strain of approximately 18% for endocardial and epicardial layers and 15% for the mid-wall layer.
Why the study?
The study was designed to assess the effect of user-regulated image-processing settings, including spatial smoothing, temporal smoothing, and drift compensation, on fetal left ventricular strain.
Do user-regulated image-processing settings affect fetal left ventricular strain measurements?
Observational (n=30)
Do user-regulated image-processing settings affect fetal left ventricular strain measurements?
User-regulated image-processing settings induce significant individual-level discrepancies in fetal left ventricular strain, highlighting the need for consistent settings during examination.
Settings may induce up to 18% individual discrepancies in fetal LV strain; leaves standardization needs open for reliable use.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of user-regulated image-processing settings (spatial smoothing, temporal smoothing and drift compensation) on fetal left ventricular strain. METHODS: Left ventricular average longitudinal strain was acquired from the four-chamber view of the fetal heart from 34 fetuses, with 30 fetuses presenting adequate quality. A total of 18 different settings for spatial smoothing, temporal smoothing and drift compensation were examined. At each setting the average strain for the 30 fetuses was calculated, whereby one could examine whether there was an average difference in fetal strain at the different settings. Furthermore, the difference between the highest and lowest strain values across the 18 settings was assessed for each fetus (min-max difference). The average min-max difference was then calculated across the 30 fetuses to calculate the mean discrepancy in fetal strain due to smoothing settings. RESULTS: The average effect of the smoothing settings as well as drift compensation by them was small. However, when examining the discrepancy induced by the different settings together, they induced average proportional differences of approximately 18% for the endocardial and epicardial layers and 15% for the mid-wall layer. CONCLUSION: This study shows that while the average effect of different smoothing settings and drift compensation was small, they induced significant discrepancy in strain values on the individual level. We recommend that examiners be consistent with regard to smoothing and drift compensation settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Fetal left ventricular strain (n=30). Image-processing settings (spatial smoothing, temporal smoothing, and drift compensation) vs. Different settings was evaluated on Discrepancy in fetal left ventricular strain (min-max difference across settings). Different image-processing settings induced average proportional differences in fetal strain of approximately 18% for endocardial and epicardial layers and 15% for the mid-wall layer.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: