Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34813989›Full record

ArticleClinical imaging2022

Comparison of machine learning and deep learning for view identification from cardiac magnetic resonance images.

Daksh Chauhan, Emeka Anyanwu, Jacob Goes, Stephanie A Besser, Simran Anand, Ravi Madduri, Neil Getty, Sebastian Kelle, Keigo Kawaji, Victor Mor-Avi and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Towards a cardiovascular magnetic resonance foundation model for multi-task cardiac image analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

11 authors.

Daksh ChauhanUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Emeka AnyanwuDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Jacob GoesIllinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Stephanie A BesserDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Simran AnandUniversity Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Ravi MadduriData Science and Learning Department, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, United States of America.
Neil GettyIllinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, United States of America; Data Science and Learning Department, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, United States of America.
Sebastian KelleDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiology German Heart Center, Berlin, Germany.
Keigo KawajiIllinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Victor Mor-AviDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Amit R PatelDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America; Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America. Electronic address: amitpatel@uchicago.edu.

Funding

The Institute for Translational MedicineUL1TR002389 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Joshua J Jacobs, DAVID O MELTZER · 2017 to 2026
$71.6M
MR Quantification of Myocardial Oxygen Utilization in Chronic Myocardial Infarction without ContrastK25HL141634 · NHLBI · ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI KAWAJI, KEIGO · 2019 to 2023
$831k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002389NHLBI NIH HHS K25 HL141634
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence is increasingly utilized to aid in the interpretation of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies. One of the first steps is the identification of the imaging plane depicted, which can be achieved by both deep learning (DL) and classical machine learning (ML) techniques without user input. We aimed to compare the accuracy of ML and DL for CMR view classification and to identify potential pitfalls during training and testing of the algorithms.

methodsTo train our DL and ML algorithms, we first established datasets by retrospectively selecting 200 CMR cases. The models were trained using two different cohorts (passively and actively curated) and applied data augmentation to enhance training. Once trained, the models were validated on an external dataset, consisting of 20 cases acquired at another center. We then compared accuracy metrics and applied class activation mapping (CAM) to visualize DL model performance.

resultsThe DL and ML models trained with the passively-curated CMR cohort were 99.1% and 99.3% accurate on the validation set, respectively. However, when tested on the CMR cases with complex anatomy, both models performed poorly. After training and testing our models again on all 200 cases (active cohort), validation on the external dataset resulted in 95% and 90% accuracy, respectively. The CAM analysis depicted heat maps that demonstrated the importance of carefully curating the datasets to be used for training.

conclusionsBoth DL and ML models can accurately classify CMR images, but DL outperformed ML when classifying images with complex heart anatomy.

Indexed as

Deep LearningArtificial IntelligenceHumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceAutomated diagnosisMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID34813989
PMCPMC8849564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.