Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38992116›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024

Development and validation of AI-derived segmentation of four-chamber cine cardiac magnetic resonance.

Hosamadin Assadi, Samer Alabed, Rui Li, Gareth Matthews, Kavita Karunasaagarar, Bahman Kasmai, Sunil Nair, Zia Mehmood, Ciaran Grafton-Clarke, Peter P Swoboda and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05114785 (PReserved Ejection Fraction Evaluation and Recognition by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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.

NCT05114785 not yet recruitingnot on this map

PReserved Ejection Fraction Evaluation and Recognition by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of East AngliaRan2022 to 2032Enrolled100ConditionsHeart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction, Heart DiseasesArmsMulti Parametric Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

16 authors.

Hosamadin AssadiDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Samer AlabedDepartment of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Rui LiDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Gareth MatthewsDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Kavita KarunasaagararDepartment of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Bahman KasmaiDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Sunil NairNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Zia MehmoodNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Ciaran Grafton-ClarkeDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Peter P SwobodaDivision of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Andrew J SwiftDepartment of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
John P GreenwoodDivision of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Vassilios S VassiliouDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Sven PleinDivision of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rob J van der GeestDepartment of Radiology, Division of Image Processing, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Pankaj GargDepartment of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK. P.Garg@uea.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-169X

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 220703/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in the four-chamber plane offers comprehensive insight into the volumetrics of the heart. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model of time-resolved segmentation using the four-chamber cine.

methodsA fully automated deep learning algorithm was trained using retrospective multicentre and multivendor data of 814 subjects. Validation, reproducibility, and mortality prediction were evaluated on an independent cohort of 101 subjects.

resultsThe mean age of the validation cohort was 54 years, and 66 (65%) were males. Left and right heart parameters demonstrated strong correlations between automated and manual analysis, with a ρ of 0.91-0.98 and 0.89-0.98, respectively, with minimal bias. All AI four-chamber volumetrics in repeatability analysis demonstrated high correlation (ρ = 0.99-1.00) and no bias. Automated four-chamber analysis underestimated both left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes compared to ground-truth short-axis cine analysis. Two correction factors for LV and RV four-chamber analysis were proposed based on systematic bias. After applying the correction factors, a strong correlation and minimal bias for LV volumetrics were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 6.75 years, 16 patients died. On stepwise multivariable analysis, left atrial ejection fraction demonstrated an independent association with death in both manual (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.003) and AI analyses (HR = 0.96, p < 0.001).

conclusionFully automated four-chamber CMR is feasible, reproducible, and has the same real-world prognostic value as manual analysis. LV volumes by four-chamber segmentation were comparable to short-axis volumetric assessment. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05114785. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Integrating fully automated AI in CMR promises to revolutionise clinical cardiac assessment, offering efficient, accurate, and prognostically valuable insights for improved patient care and outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Four-chamber cine sequences remain one of the most informative acquisitions in CMR examination. • This deep learning-based, time-resolved, fully automated four-chamber volumetric, functional, and deformation analysis solution. • LV and RV were underestimated by four-chamber analysis compared to ground truth short-axis segmentation. • Correction bias for both LV and RV volumes by four-chamber segmentation, minimises the systematic bias.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, CineArtificial IntelligenceDeep LearningFemaleHeartHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligence, Deep learning, Heart diseases, Magnetic resonance imaging (cine), Prognosis

Identifiers

PMID38992116
PMCPMC11239622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.