ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2022
Reliability and feasibility of automated function imaging for quantification in patients with left ventricular dilation: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulse wave signal-driven machine learning for identifying left ventricular enlargement in heart failure patients.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Article
- Clinical service evaluation of the feasibility and reproducibility of novel artificial intelligence based-echocardiographic quantification of global longitudinal strain and left ventricular ejection fraction in trastuzumab-treated patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated function imaging (AFI, GE Healthcare) is a novel promising algorithm of speckle-tracking echocardiography that combines two-dimensional strain and AI technology. It shortens the analysis time, saves the cost associated with streamlining of image acquisition, rapid analysis, and reporting, and has greater accuracy and reproducibility of measurements. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and feasibility of AFI for the quantification of left ventricular (LV) volumes and function in patients with LV dilation by comparison with CMR. We retrospectively studied 50 patients with LV dilation on echocardiography whom both underwent CMR and coronary angiography within three days. LV volumes, ejection fraction (EF), and global longitudinal strain (GLS) were measured from 3 long-axis cine-views via the AFI technique in two modes: without editing (auto-AFI) and with partial border editing (semi-auto-AFI). The LV volumes and EF were also measured with 2D Simpson's biplane method, and CMR, as the standard method, was used for comparison. The AFI method still had significantly underestimated the LV volumes compared with CMR (P<0.01), but there were no significant differences between the AFI method and the conventional Simpson's biplane method. There were no significant differences in EF between CMR and the AFI method with good correlations (auto-AFI: r = 0.81, semi-auto-AFI: r = 0.86). The auto-AFI method provided the most rapid analysis and excellent reproducibility, while the semi-auto-AFI method further improved measurement accuracy. However, there were no significant differences in LV volumes and EF between these two AFI methods. The accuracy of AFI seems to be more affected by the image quality than the left ventricular morphology. AFI enables accurate, efficient, and rapid evaluation of LV volumes and EF in patients with dilated LV, with good reproducibility and correlations with CMR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.