MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210888206 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/jeab289.002

A prospective validation of a deep learning-based automated workflow for the interpretation of the echocardiogram

2022· article· en· W4210888206 on OpenAlexaff
Jasper Tromp, D.C. Bauer, B Claggett, M. M. Frost, MB Iversen, Narayana Prasad, Mark C. Petrie, MG Larson, JA Ezekowitz, SD Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalArtificial intelligenceProspective cohort studyMedicineDeep learningMachine learningEjection fractionMedical physicsInternal medicineComputer scienceHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Us2.ai Background. Deep learning can automate the interpretation of medical imaging tests. This study aimed to prospectively assess the interchangeability of deep learning algorithms with expert human measurements for interpreting echocardiographic studies, the primary method for assessing cardiac structure and function. Methods. We compared a deep learning interpretation of 23 echocardiographic parameters—including cardiac volumes, ejection fraction, and Doppler measurements—with three repeated measurements by core lab human experts in a prospective study for submission to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The primary outcome metric was the individual equivalence coefficient (IEC), which compares the disagreement between deep learning and human readers relative to the disagreement among human readers. The pre-determined non-inferiority criterion was 0.25 for the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes included measures of agreement, including the mean absolute deviation. Results. We included 602 studies from 600 participants (421 with heart failure, 179 controls, 69% women) with a mean age of 57 ± 16 years. The point estimates of IEC were all <0, indicating that the disagreement between the deep learning and human measures were lower than the disagreement among three core lab readers, and the upper bound of the 95% CI of IECs fell below the prespecified success criterion of 0.25. Secondary endpoints showed good agreement of automated with human expert measurements (Figure), with comparable or lower mean absolute deviations between automated and human experts relative to the mean absolute deviation among human experts. Conclusion. This prospective validation study demonstrated excellent agreement between deep learning and expert human interpretation for a wide range of echocardiographic measurements. These results highlight the potential of deep learning algorithms to improve efficiency and reduce costs of echocardiography. Abstract Figure.

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 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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207