Effect of image quality on automated evaluation of the left-sided heart volumes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction The accuracy of echocardiography interpretations is crucial. However, echocardiography has varying degrees of image quality, which can impact diagnostic decision-making. Automated chamber quantification of the left ventricle (LV) and left atrium (LA) has been shown to be feasible using machine learning (ML) systems. However, the effect of image quality on the performance of these ML systems has not been investigated. Purpose To assess the effect of different echocardiographic image quality on the performance of left-sided heart quantification using an ML system. Methods A multi-center study enrolled 240 patients who underwent stress echocardiography across five centers. The acquired rest phase images were anonymized for subsequent analysis. Expert cardiologists reviewed the studies, selecting apical four-chamber (4Ch) and two-chamber (2Ch) view images. The cardiologists identified end-systolic (ES) and end-diastolic (ED) frames. They traced the endocardial borders for the LA in ES and the LV in ED and ES. The same ED and ES frames were then processed by an ML algorithm trained on a separate set of images. Subsequently, an expert cardiologist, blinded to the previous measurements, assessed the image quality of LA and LV. The image quality for each chamber in the ES or ED frame was categorized into one of four grades: poor, suboptimal, fair, and optimal. Agreement analysis between human and AI measurements was performed within each image quality group. Yield was defined as the percentage of studies where the ML system predicted an echocardiographic parameter compared to a cardiologist. Results The yield of study parameters varied significantly with image quality. The lowest yield was 45%, observed for LV end-diastolic volume in the 2Ch view when image quality was poor. In contrast, the yield of 100% was seen for LV end-diastolic volumes in both the 4Ch and 2Ch views for optimal quality images. The correlation between automated and expert cardiologist measurements of left heart volumes varied depending on image quality. For poor or suboptimal images, the Pearson correlation coefficient ranged from 0.66 to 0.91 and improved to 0.85-0.92 in fair and optimal-quality images. Additionally, there was an inverse relation between agreement metrics (bias, limits of agreement, and coefficient of variation) and improvements in image quality. However, this tendency was less pronounced or nonexistent when comparing fair and optimal-quality images. (Table 1). Conclusions Image quality affects the yield of automated analysis and the agreement between cardiologists and automated measurements in echocardiography, highlighting the need for high-quality image acquisition in use with ML systems. Table 1
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».