Development and validation of an end-to-end deep learning pipeline to measure pericardial effusion in echocardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Cardiac tamponade, caused by pericardial effusion (PE), is a life-threatening condition that can be resolved by timely pericardiocentesis. Nevertheless, PE measurement remains operator-dependent and may be difficult in some circumstances. Our study aimed to develop a deep-learning pipeline that measures the amount of PE based on raw echocardiography clips. Methods Echocardiographic examination data were collected from one medical center in southern Taiwan from 2010–2018. Four commonly used cardiac windows, including the parasternal long-axis, parasternal short-axis, apical four-chamber, and subcostal views from included ultrasound examinations, were used for analysis. We proposed a deep learning pipeline consisting of three steps: moving window view selection, automated segmentation, and width calculation from a segmented mask. The pipeline was then prospectively validated from 2019–2020 using a dataset from the same hospital, and externally validated using data from another medical center in Taiwan. Model performance was evaluated using mean absolute error, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and R-squared value between the ground truth and predictions. Results In this study, 995 echocardiographic examinations were included. Among these, 155 were used for internal validation and 258 were used for external validation. The proposed pipeline had a predictive performance of ICC=0.867 for internal validation and ICC=0.801 for external validation. It accurately detected PE with an area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.926 (0.902–0.951) for internal validation and 0.842 (0.794–0.889) for external validation. Regarding the recognition of moderate PE or worse, the AUC values improved to 0.941 (0.923–-0.960) and 0.907 (0.876–0.943) for internal and external validation, respectively. Of all the selected cardiac windows, our model had the best prediction in the parasternal long-axis and apical four-chamber views. Conclusions The machine-learning pipeline could automatically calculate the width of the PE from raw ultrasound clips. The novel concepts of moving window view selection for image quality control and computer vision techniques for maximal PE width calculation seem useful in the field of ultrasound.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".