Comparison of manual and artificial intelligence based quantification of myocardial strain by feature tracking—a cardiovascular MR study in health and disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The analysis of myocardial deformation using feature tracking in cardiovascular MR allows for the assessment of global and segmental strain values. The aim of this study was to compare strain values derived from artificial intelligence (AI)-based contours with manually derived strain values in healthy volunteers and patients with cardiac pathologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 136 subjects (60 healthy volunteers and 76 patients; of those including 46 cases with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) of varying etiology and 30 cases with chronic myocardial infarction) was analyzed. Comparisons were based on quantitative strain analysis and on a geometric level by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of the segmentations. Strain quantification was performed in 3 long-axis slices and short-axis (SAX) stack with epi- and endocardial contours in end-diastole. AI contours were checked for plausibility and potential errors in the tracking algorithm. RESULTS: AI-derived strain values overestimated radial strain (+ 1.8 ± 1.7% (mean difference ± standard deviation); p = 0.03) and underestimated circumferential (- 0.8 ± 0.8%; p = 0.02) and longitudinal strain (- 0.1 ± 0.8%; p = 0.54). Pairwise group comparisons revealed no significant differences for global strain. The DSC showed good agreement for healthy volunteers (85.3 ± 10.3% for SAX) and patients (80.8 ± 9.6% for SAX). In 27 cases (27/76; 35.5%), a tracking error was found, predominantly (24/27; 88.9%) in the LVH group and 22 of those (22/27; 81.5%) at the insertion of the papillary muscle in lateral segments. CONCLUSIONS: Strain analysis based on AI-segmented images shows good results in healthy volunteers and in most of the patient groups. Hypertrophied ventricles remain a challenge for contouring and feature tracking. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: AI-based segmentations can help to streamline and standardize strain analysis by feature tracking. KEY POINTS: • Assessment of strain in cardiovascular magnetic resonance by feature tracking can generate global and segmental strain values. • Commercially available artificial intelligence algorithms provide segmentation for strain analysis comparable to manual segmentation. • Hypertrophied ventricles are challenging in regards of strain analysis by feature tracking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".