Simulated variations in echocardiogram acquisition position degraded AI model performance compared to standard views, though performance on poor views remained better than random.
Variations in echocardiographic image acquisition degrade AI model performance, highlighting the need to account for out-of-distribution data caused by human sonographer variability.
Advancements in medical imaging and artificial intelligence (AI) have revolutionized the field of cardiac diagnostics, providing accurate and efficient tools for assessing cardiac function. AI diagnostics claims to improve upon the human-to-human variation that is known to be significant. However, when put in practice, for cardiac ultrasound, AI models are being run on images acquired by human sonographers whose quality and consistency may vary. With more variation than other medical imaging modalities, variation in image acquisition may lead to out-of-distribution (OOD) data and unpredictable performance of the AI tools. Recent advances in ultrasound technology has allowed the acquisition of both 3D as well as 2D data, however 3D has more limited temporal and spatial resolution and is still not routinely acquired. Because the training datasets used when developing AI algorithms are mostly developed using 2D images, it is difficult to determine the impact of human variation on the performance of AI tools in the real world. The objective of this project is to leverage 3D echos to simulate realistic human variation of image acquisition and better understand the OOD performance of a previously validated AI model. In doing so, we develop tools for interpreting 3D echo data and quantifiably recreating common variation in image acquisition between sonographers. We also developed a technique for finding good standard 2D views in 3D echo volumes. We found the performance of the AI model we evaluated to be as expected when the view is good, but variations in acquisition position degraded AI model performance. Performance on far from ideal views was poor, but still better than random, suggesting that there is some information being used that permeates the whole volume, not just a quality view. Additionally, we found that variations in foreshortening didn't result in the same errors that a human would make.
Duffy et al. (Fri,) conducted a other in Cardiac function assessment. Simulated variation in echocardiogram acquisition vs. Standard 2D views was evaluated on AI model performance on out-of-distribution data. Simulated variations in echocardiogram acquisition position degraded AI model performance compared to standard views, though performance on poor views remained better than random.