ArticleBiomedicines2023
Deep Learning to Classify AL versus ATTR Cardiac Amyloidosis MR Images.
Article in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning-based methods in diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this work was to compare the classification of cardiac MR-images of AL versus ATTR amyloidosis by neural networks and by experienced human readers. Cine-MR images and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images of 120 patients were studied (70 AL and 50 TTR). A VGG16 convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained with a 5-fold cross validation process, taking care to strictly distribute images of a given patient in either the training group or the test group. The analysis was performed at the patient level by averaging the predictions obtained for each image. The classification accuracy obtained between AL and ATTR amyloidosis was 0.750 for cine-CNN, 0.611 for Gado-CNN and between 0.617 and 0.675 for human readers. The corresponding AUC of the ROC curve was 0.839 for cine-CNN, 0.679 for gado-CNN (p < 0.004 vs. cine) and 0.714 for the best human reader (p < 0.007 vs. cine). Logistic regression with cine-CNN and gado-CNN, as well as analysis focused on the specific orientation plane, did not change the overall results. We conclude that cine-CNN leads to significantly better discrimination between AL and ATTR amyloidosis as compared to gado-CNN or human readers, but with lower performance than reported in studies where visual diagnosis is easy, and is currently suboptimal for clinical practice.
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.