ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2022
Assessment of right ventricular size and function from cardiovascular magnetic resonance images using artificial intelligence.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated assessment of right heart function by artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Contrast-Free Myocardial Infarction Segmentation with Attention U-Net.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Right Ventricular Function in Patients With Significant Tricuspid Regurgitation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- A Multimodular AI Algorithm for Automated Assessment of Left Ventricular Function in Ischemic Heart Disease: Ejection Fraction, Wall Motion, and Regional Myocardial Segmentation.Balkan medical journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Truncated Cone-Rhomboid Pyramid Formula for Simplified Right Ventricular Quantification: A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Anatomical Prior-Based Automatic Segmentation for Cardiac Substructures from Computed Tomography Images.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Free-breathing cardiovascular cine magnetic resonance imaging using compressed-sensing and retrospective motion correction: accurate assessment of biventricular volume at 3T.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Deep learning can yield clinically useful right ventricular segmentations faster than fully manual analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Advancing cardiovascular medicine with machine learning: Progress, potential, and perspective.Cell reports. Medicine · 2022Review
- Papillary and Trabecular Muscles Have Substantial Impact on Quantification of Left Ventricle in Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTheoretically, artificial intelligence can provide an accurate automatic solution to measure right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (RVEF) from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images, despite the complex RV geometry. However, in our recent study, commercially available deep learning (DL) algorithms for RVEF quantification performed poorly in some patients. The current study was designed to test the hypothesis that quantification of RV function could be improved in these patients by using more diverse CMR datasets in addition to domain-specific quantitative performance evaluation metrics during the cross-validation phase of DL algorithm development.
methodsWe identified 100 patients from our prior study who had the largest differences between manually measured and automated RVEF values. Automated RVEF measurements were performed using the original version of the algorithm (DL1), an updated version (DL2) developed from a dataset that included a wider range of RV pathology and validated using multiple domain-specific quantitative performance evaluation metrics, and conventional methodology performed by a core laboratory (CORE). Each of the DL-RVEF approaches was compared against CORE-RVEF reference values using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. Additionally, RVEF values were classified into 3 categories: ≤ 35%, 35-50%, and ≥ 50%. Agreement between RVEF classifications made by the DL approaches and the CORE measurements was tested.
resultsCORE-RVEF and DL-RVEFs were obtained in all patients (feasibility of 100%). DL2-RVEF correlated with CORE-RVEF better than DL1-RVEF (r = 0.87 vs. r = 0.42), with narrower limits of agreement. As a result, DL2 algorithm also showed increasing accuracy from 0.53 to 0.80 for categorizing RV function.
conclusionsThe use of a new DL algorithm cross-validated on a dataset with a wide range of RV pathology using multiple domain-specific metrics resulted in a considerable improvement in the accuracy of automated RVEF measurements. This improvement was demonstrated in patients whose images were the most challenging and resulted in the largest RVEF errors. These findings underscore the critical importance of this strategy in the development of DL approaches for automated CMR measurements.
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.