ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2023
Automated multi-beat tissue Doppler echocardiography analysis using deep neural networks.
Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tissue Doppler Imaging in Acute and Critical Care: Enhancing Diagnostic Precision.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Sixty years in service to international biomedical engineering community.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2023Article
- Evolving the Era of 5D Ultrasound? A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications for Artificial Intelligence Ultrasound Imaging in Obstetrics and Gynecology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tissue Doppler imaging is an essential echocardiographic technique for the non-invasive assessment of myocardial blood velocity. Image acquisition and interpretation are performed by trained operators who visually localise landmarks representing Doppler peak velocities. Current clinical guidelines recommend averaging measurements over several heartbeats. However, this manual process is both time-consuming and disruptive to workflow. An automated system for accurate beat isolation and landmark identification would be highly desirable. A dataset of tissue Doppler images was annotated by three cardiologist experts, providing a gold standard and allowing for observer variability comparisons. Deep neural networks were trained for fully automated predictions on multiple heartbeats and tested on tissue Doppler strips of arbitrary length. Automated measurements of peak Doppler velocities show good Bland-Altman agreement (average standard deviation of 0.40 cm/s) with consensus expert values; less than the inter-observer variability (0.65 cm/s). Performance is akin to individual experts (standard deviation of 0.40 to 0.75 cm/s). Our approach allows for > 26 times as many heartbeats to be analysed, compared to a manual approach. The proposed automated models can accurately and reliably make measurements on tissue Doppler images spanning several heartbeats, with performance indistinguishable from that of human experts, but with significantly shorter processing time. HIGHLIGHTS: • Novel approach successfully identifies heartbeats from Tissue Doppler Images • Accurately measures peak velocities on several heartbeats • Framework is fast and can make predictions on arbitrary length images • Patient dataset and models made public for future benchmark studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36631666What 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.