MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981723289 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0011

4941Machine learning based automated diagnosis of ischemic vs non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy using 3D myocardial deformation analysis

2019· article· en· W2981723289 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucy Y. Lei, Alessandro Satriano, Mathew Magyar-Ng, Yoko Mikami, Sunil V. Kalmady, Bret Hoehn, Steven Dykstra, Bobak Heydari, Jacqueline Flewitt, Naeem Merchant, Andrew G. Howarth, Carmen Lydell, Russell Greiner, Nowell M. Fine, James A. White

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionDilated cardiomyopathyIschemic cardiomyopathyCardiologyInternal medicineCardiomyopathyPopulationHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Late Gadolinium Enhancement (LGE) imaging is a reference standard technique for the differentiation of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) from non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). 3D myocardial deformation analysis (3D-MDA) offers highly reproducible phenotypic assessments of regional architecture and function that may provide value for artificial-intelligence-assisted cardiomyopathy diagnosis without need for LGE imaging. Purpose In this study, we trained and validated a machine-learning-based model to enable automated diagnosis of ischemic versus non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy exclusively using regional patterns of deformation among patients otherwise matched by age, sex and global contractile dysfunction. Methods 100 ICM and 100 NIDCM patients matched for age, sex, and LVEF underwent standard cine SSFP and LGE imaging. Patient diagnoses were established using a combination of clinical and LGE-based criteria. 3D-MDA was performed using validated software (GIUSEPPE) to compute regional 3D strain measures at each cardiac phase in both conventional and principal strain directions. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed on the composite 3D-MDA dataset. The first 20 components were chosen, accounting for approximately 65% of the population variance. Subsequently, a support-vector-machine-based algorithm was used with 10-fold cross-validation to discriminate ICM from NIDCM. Results Patients were 63±10 years (ICM: 63±10 years, NIDCM: 63±10 years, p=0.955), 74% male (ICM: 74%, NIDCM: 74%, p=1.000), and had a mean LVEF of 27±8% (ICM: 27±7%, NIDCM: 28±7%, p=0.688). Global time to peak strain was significantly shorter in ICM patients relative to NIDCM patients across all surfaces and in all directions (p<0.05). The highest single-variable Area Under the Curve (AUC) achieved for the classification of ICM versus NIDCM from global data was for minimum principal strain (ICM: 43.7±7.8, NIDCM: 48.3±7.5, p<0.001, AUC: 0.682) (Figure 1). However, a multi-feature machine-learning-based model exposed to all available regional 3D deformation data achieved an AUC of 0.903 (sensitivity 87.7%, specificity 75.5%). Conclusions Machine learning-based analyses of3D regionaldeformation patterns allows for robust discrimination of ICM versus NIDCM. Further expansion of the presented findings is planned on a wider, multi-centre cohort. Acknowledgement/Funding Dr. White was supported by an award from Heart and Stroke Foundation of Alberta. This study was funded in part by Calgary Health Trust.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→