MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211857043 · doi:10.1002/mp.15327

Implementation and prospective clinical validation of AI‐based planning and shimming techniques in cardiac MRI

2021· article· en· W3211857043 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Edalati, Zheng Yuan, Mary P. Watkins, Junjie Chen, Liu Liu, Shuheng Zhang, Yanli Song, Daniel J. Lenihan, Gregory M. Lanza

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsActuaWestern University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsShim (computing)Magnetic resonance imagingMedicineImage qualityCardiac imagingCardiac magnetic resonance imagingWilcoxon signed-rank testCardiac UltrasoundImage noiseEjection fractionCardiac magnetic resonanceNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceRadiologyComputer scienceUltrasoundSurgeryCardiologyHeart failureMann–Whitney U testInternal medicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a vital diagnostic tool in the management of cardiovascular diseases. The advent of advanced CMR technologies combined with artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to simplify imaging, reduce image acquisition time without compromising image quality (IQ), and improve magnetic field uniformity. Here, we aim to implement two AI-based deep learning techniques for automatic slice alignment and cardiac shimming and evaluate their performance in clinical cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Two deep neural networks were developed, trained, and validated on pre-acquired cardiac MRI datasets (>500 subjects) to achieve automatic slice planning and shimming (implemented in the scanner) for CMR. To examine the performance of our automated cardiac planning (EasyScan) and AI-based shim (AI shim), two prospective studies were performed subsequently. For the EasyScan validation, 10 healthy subjects underwent two identical CMR protocols: with manual cardiac planning and with AI-based EasyScan to assess protocol scan time difference and accuracy of cardiac plane prescriptions on a 1.5 T clinical MRI scanner. For the AI shim validation, a total of 20 subjects were recruited: 10 healthy and 10 cardio-oncology patients with referrals for a CMR examination. Cine images were obtained with standard cardiac volume shim and with AI shim to assess signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), overall IQ (sharpness and MR image degradation), ejection fraction (EF), and absolute wall thickening. A hybrid statistical method using of nonparametric (Wilcoxon) and parametric (t-test) assessments was employed for statistical analyses. RESULTS: CMR protocol with AI-based plane prescriptions, EasyScan, minimized operator dependence and reduced overall scanning time by over 2 min (∼13 % faster, p < 0.001) compared to the protocol with manual cardiac planning. EasyScan plane prescriptions also demonstrated more accurate (less plane angulation errors from planes manually prescribed by a certified cardiac MRI technologist) cardiac planes than previously reported strategies. Additionally, AI shim resulted in improved B0 field homogeneity. Cine images obtained with AI shim revealed a significantly higher SNR (12.49%; p = 0.002) than those obtained with volume shim (volume shim: 32.90 ± 7.42 vs. AI shim: 37.01 ± 8.87) for the left ventricle (LV) myocardium. LV myocardium CNR was 12.48% higher for cine imaging with AI shim (149.02 ± 39.15) than volume shim (132.49 ± 33.94). Images obtained with AI shim resulted in sharper images than those obtained with volume shim (p = 0.012). The LVEF and absolute wall thickening also showed that differences exist between the two shimming methods. The LVEF by AI shim was shown to be slightly larger than LVEF by volume shim in two groups: 2.87% higher with AI shim for the healthy group and 1.70% higher with AI shim for the patient group. The LV absolute wall thickening (in mm) also showed that differences exist between shimming methods for each group with larger changes observed in the patient group (healthy: 3.31%, p = 0.234 and patient group: 7.29%, p = 0.059). CONCLUSIONS: CMR exams using EasyScan for cardiac planning demonstrated accelerated cardiac exam compared to the CMR protocol with manual cardiac planning. Improved and more uniform B0 magnetic field homogeneity also achieved using AI shim technique compared to volume shimming.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designBench or experimental · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations44
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207