Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39224625›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2024

Comparison of left ventricular mass and wall thickness between cardiac computed tomography angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging using machine learning algorithms.

Finn Y van Driest, Rob J van der Geest, Sharif K Omara, Alexander Broersen, Jouke Dijkstra, J Wouter Jukema, Arthur J H A Scholte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Cardiac CT for the Assessment of Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Finn Y van DriestDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden Heart-Lung Centre, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6274-2590
Rob J van der GeestDepartment of Radiology, Division of image processing, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.
Sharif K OmaraDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden Heart-Lung Centre, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.
Alexander BroersenDepartment of Radiology, Division of image processing, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.
Jouke DijkstraDepartment of Radiology, Division of image processing, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.
J Wouter JukemaDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden Heart-Lung Centre, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3246-8359
Arthur J H A ScholteDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden Heart-Lung Centre, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the gold standard in the assessment of left ventricle (LV) mass and wall thickness. In recent years, cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has gained widespread usage as an imaging modality. Despite this, limited previous investigations have specifically addressed the potential of CCTA as an alternative modality for quantitative LV assessment. The aim of this study was to compare CCTA derived LV mass and wall thickness with cardiac MRI utilizing machine learning algorithms. Methods and results: Fifty-seven participants who underwent both CCTA and cardiac MRI were identified. LV mass and wall thickness was calculated using LV contours which were automatically placed using in-house developed machine learning models. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated along with Bland-Altman plots to assess the agreement between the LV mass and wall thickness per region on CCTA and cardiac MRI. Inter-observer correlations were tested using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Average LV mass and wall thickness for CCTA and cardiac MRI were 127 g, 128 g, 7, and 8 mm, respectively. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated mean differences and corresponding 95% limits of agreement of -1.26 (25.06; -27.58) and -0.57 (1.78; -2.92), for LV mass and average LV wall thickness, respectively. Mean differences and corresponding 95% limits of agreement for wall thickness per region were -0.75 (1.34; -2.83), -0.58 (2.14; -3.30), and -0.29 (3.21; -3.79) for the basal, mid, and apical regions, respectively. Inter-observer correlations were excellent. Conclusion: Quantitative assessment of LV mass and wall thickness on CCTA using machine learning algorithms seems feasible and shows good agreement with cardiac MRI.

Indexed as

cardiac MRICCTALV segmentationmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID39224625
PMCPMC11367951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.