Development and optimization of SPECT gated blood pool cluster analysis for the prediction of CRT outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Phase analysis of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) radionuclide angiography (RNA) has been investigated for its potential to predict the outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, phase analysis may be limited in its potential at predicting CRT outcome as valuable information may be lost by assuming that time-activity curves (TAC) follow a simple sinusoidal shape. A new method, cluster analysis, is proposed which directly evaluates the TACs and may lead to a better understanding of dyssynchrony patterns and CRT outcome. Cluster analysis algorithms were developed and optimized to maximize their ability to predict CRT response. METHODS: About 49 patients (N = 27 ischemic etiology) received a SPECT RNA scan as well as positron emission tomography (PET) perfusion and viability scans prior to undergoing CRT. A semiautomated algorithm sampled the left ventricle wall to produce 568 TACs from SPECT RNA data. The TACs were then subjected to two different cluster analysis techniques, K-means, and normal average, where several input metrics were also varied to determine the optimal settings for the prediction of CRT outcome. Each TAC was assigned to a cluster group based on the comparison criteria and global and segmental cluster size and scores were used as measures of dyssynchrony and used to predict response to CRT. A repeated random twofold cross-validation technique was used to train and validate the cluster algorithm. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and compare results to those obtained for SPECT RNA phase analysis and PET scar size analysis methods. RESULTS: Using the normal average cluster analysis approach, the septal wall produced statistically significant results for predicting CRT results in the ischemic population (ROC AUC = 0.73;p < 0.05 vs. equal chance ROC AUC = 0.50) with an optimal operating point of 71% sensitivity and 60% specificity. Cluster analysis results were similar to SPECT RNA phase analysis (ROC AUC = 0.78, p = 0.73 vs cluster AUC; sensitivity/specificity = 59%/89%) and PET scar size analysis (ROC AUC = 0.73, p = 1.0 vs cluster AUC; sensitivity/specificity = 76%/67%). CONCLUSIONS: A SPECT RNA cluster analysis algorithm was developed for the prediction of CRT outcome. Cluster analysis results produced results equivalent to those obtained from Fourier and scar analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".