Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32820382›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2021

Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow by Machine Learning Analysis of Modified Dual Bolus MRI Examination.

Minna Husso, Isaac O Afara, Mikko J Nissi, Antti Kuivanen, Paavo Halonen, Miikka Tarkia, Jarmo Teuho, Virva Saunavaara, Pauli Vainio, Petri Sipola and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Machine learning: a new era for cardiovascular pregnancy physiology and cardio-obstetrics research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024
    Review
  3. Strengths and weaknesses of alternative noninvasive imaging approaches for microvascular ischemia.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Minna HussoDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029 KYS, Kuopio, Finland. minna.husso@kuh.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8045-981X
Isaac O AfaraDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Mikko J NissiDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Antti KuivanenA.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecule Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Paavo HalonenA.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecule Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Miikka TarkiaTurku PET Centre, University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Jarmo TeuhoTurku PET Centre, University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Virva SaunavaaraTurku PET Centre, University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Pauli VainioDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029 KYS, Kuopio, Finland.
Petri SipolaDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029 KYS, Kuopio, Finland.
Hannu ManninenDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029 KYS, Kuopio, Finland.
Seppo Ylä-HerttualaA.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecule Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Juhani KnuutiTurku PET Centre, University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Juha TöyräsDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029 KYS, Kuopio, Finland.
Kuopio University Hospital · FIUniversity of Eastern Finland · FIUniversity of Turku · FIQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

Academy of Finland # 271961Academy of Finland #285909Kuopion Yliopistollinen Sairaala VTR n:o 5063530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising method for estimating myocardial blood flow (MBF). However, it is often affected by noise from imaging artefacts, such as dark rim artefact obscuring relevant features. Machine learning enables extracting important features from such noisy data and is increasingly applied in areas where traditional approaches are limited. In this study, we investigate the capacity of machine learning, particularly support vector machines (SVM) and random forests (RF), for estimating MBF from tissue impulse response signal in an animal model. Domestic pigs (n = 5) were subjected to contrast enhanced first pass MRI (MRI-FP) and the impulse response at different regions of the myocardium (n = 24/pig) were evaluated at rest (n = 120) and stress (n = 96). Reference MBF was then measured using positron emission tomography (PET). Since the impulse response may include artefacts, classification models based on SVM and RF were developed to discriminate noisy signal. In addition, regression models based on SVM, RF and linear regression (for comparison) were developed for estimating MBF from the impulse response at rest and stress. The classification and regression models were trained on data from 4 pigs (n = 168) and tested on 1 pig (n = 48). Models based on SVM and RF outperformed linear regression, with higher correlation (R

Indexed as

Coronary CirculationAnimalsFemaleHeartMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingMyocardial IschemiaPositron-Emission TomographySwineMachine learningMagnetic resonance imagingModified dual bolus methodMyocardial perfusion imagingRandom forestSupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID32820382
PMCPMC7851105
OpenAlexW3061857678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.