Key result
Automated deep learning for coronary angiography achieves ~85% accuracy in per-patient stenosis classification.
Why the study?
Current CNN-based vessel-segmentation for automatic coronary angiography suffers from sampling imbalance, candidate frame selection, and overfitting, with few showing adequate performance for stenosis classification.
Does a deep learning-based end-to-end workflow accurately classify and localize stenosis on catheter coronary angiography?
Observational (n=230)
Yes
Does a deep learning-based end-to-end workflow accurately classify and localize stenosis on catheter coronary angiography?
A fully-automatic deep learning workflow can accurately classify and localize coronary artery stenosis on angiography without requiring manual vessel extraction or segmentation.
End-to-end DL workflow for CAG may speed stenosis screening; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
Background Automatic coronary angiography (CAG) assessment may help in faster screening and diagnosis of patients. Current CNN-based vessel-segmentation suffers from sampling imbalance, candidate frame selection, and overfitting; few have shown adequate performance for CAG stenosis classification. We aimed to provide an end-to-end workflow that may solve these problems. Methods A deep learning-based end-to-end workflow was employed as follows: 1) Candidate frame selection from CAG videograms with CNN+LSTM network, 2) Stenosis classification with Inception-v3 using 2 or 3 categories (<25%, >25%, and/or total occlusion) with and without redundancy training, and 3) Stenosis localization with two methods of class activation map (CAM) and anchor-based feature pyramid network (FPN). Overall 13744 frames from 230 studies were used for the stenosis classification training and 4-fold cross-validation for image-, artery-, and per-patient-level. For the stenosis localization training and 4-fold cross-validation, 690 images with >25% stenosis were used. Results Our model achieved an accuracy of 0.85, sensitivity of 0.96, and AUC of 0.86 in per-patient level stenosis classification. Redundancy training was effective to improve classification performance. Stenosis position localization was adequate with better quantitative results in anchor-based FPN model, achieving global-sensitivity for LCA and RCA of 0.68 and 0.70 with mean square error (MSE) values of 39.3 and 37.6 pixels respectively, in the 520 × 520 pixel image. Conclusion A fully-automatic end-to-end deep learning-based workflow that eliminates the vessel extraction and segmentation step was feasible in coronary artery stenosis classification and localization on CAG images. Key Points The fully-automatic, end-to-end workflow which eliminated the vessel extraction and segmentation step for supervised-learning was feasible in the stenosis classification on CAG images, achieving an accuracy of 0.85, sensitivity of 0.96, and AUC of 0.86 in per-patient level. The redundancy training improved the AUC values, accuracy, F1-score, and kappa score of the stenosis classification. Stenosis position localization was assessed in two methods of CAM-based and anchor-based models, which performance was acceptable with better quantitative results in anchor-based models. Summary Statement A fully-automatic end-to-end deep learning-based workflow which eliminated the vessel extraction and segmentation step was feasible in the stenosis classification and localization on CAG images. The redundancy training improved the stenosis classification performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cong et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Suspected coronary artery disease (n=230). Deep learning-based end-to-end automated stenosis classification and localization vs. Quantitative Coronary Angiography (QCA) and expert annotation was evaluated on Per-patient level stenosis classification (accuracy). A fully-automatic end-to-end deep learning-based workflow for coronary angiography achieved an accuracy of 0.85, sensitivity of 0.96, and AUC of 0.86 for per-patient level stenosis classification.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: