Identifying Myocardial Infarction Using Hierarchical Template Matching–Based Myocardial Strain: Algorithm Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction (MI; location and extent of infarction) can be determined by late enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, which requires the injection of a potentially harmful gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA). Alternatively, emerging research in the area of myocardial strain has shown potential to identify MI using strain values. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the location of MI by developing an applied algorithmic method of circumferential strain (CS) values, which are derived through a novel hierarchical template matching (HTM) method. METHODS: HTM-based CS H-spread from end-diastole to end-systole was used to develop an applied method. Grid-tagging magnetic resonance imaging was used to calculate strain values in the left ventricular (LV) myocardium, followed by the 16-segment American Heart Association model. The data set was used with k-fold cross-validation to estimate the percentage reduction of H-spread among infarcted and noninfarcted LV segments. A total of 43 participants (38 MI and 5 healthy) who underwent CMR imaging were retrospectively selected. Infarcted segments detected by using this method were validated by comparison with late enhancement CMR, and the diagnostic performance of the applied algorithmic method was evaluated with a receiver operating characteristic curve test. RESULTS: The H-spread of the CS was reduced in infarcted segments compared with noninfarcted segments of the LV. The reductions were 30% in basal segments, 30% in midventricular segments, and 20% in apical LV segments. The diagnostic accuracy of detection, using the reported method, was represented by area under the curve values, which were 0.85, 0.82, and 0.87 for basal, midventricular, and apical slices, respectively, demonstrating good agreement with the late-gadolinium enhancement-based detections. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed applied algorithmic method has the potential to accurately identify the location of infarcted LV segments without the administration of late-gadolinium enhancement. Such an approach adds the potential to safely identify MI, potentially reduce patient scanning time, and extend the utility of CMR in patients who are contraindicated for the use of GBCA.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".