Deep Learning Analysis of Echocardiographic Images to Predict Positive Genotype in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic testing provides valuable insights into family screening strategies, diagnosis, and prognosis in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). On the other hand, genetic testing carries socio-economical and psychological burdens. It is therefore important to identify patients with HCM who are more likely to have positive genotype. However, conventional prediction models based on clinical and echocardiographic parameters offer only modest accuracy and are subject to intra- and inter-observer variability. We therefore hypothesized that deep convolutional neural network (DCNN, a type of deep learning) analysis of echocardiographic images improves the predictive accuracy of positive genotype in patients with HCM. In each case, we obtained parasternal short- and long-axis as well as apical 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-chamber views. We employed DCNN algorithm to predict positive genotype based on the input echocardiographic images. We performed 5-fold cross-validations. We used 2 reference models—the Mayo HCM Genotype Predictor score (Mayo score) and the Toronto HCM Genotype score (Toronto score). We compared the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) between a combined model using the reference model plus DCNN-derived probability and the reference model. We calculated the p -value by performing 1,000 bootstrapping. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). In addition, we examined the net reclassification improvement. We included 99 adults with HCM who underwent genetic testing. Overall, 45 patients (45%) had positive genotype. The new model combining Mayo score and DCNN-derived probability significantly outperformed Mayo score (AUC 0.86 [95% CI 0.79–0.93] vs. 0.72 [0.61–0.82]; p < 0.001). Similarly, the new model combining Toronto score and DCNN-derived probability exhibited a higher AUC compared to Toronto score alone (AUC 0.84 [0.76–0.92] vs. 0.75 [0.65–0.85]; p = 0.03). An improvement in the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV was also achieved, along with significant net reclassification improvement. In conclusion, compared to the conventional models, our new model combining the conventional and DCNN-derived models demonstrated superior accuracy to predict positive genotype in patients with HCM.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".