Interpretation of SPECT wall motion with deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a novel deep learning (DL) workflow to interpret single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) wall motion. BACKGROUND: Wall motion assessment with SPECT is limited by image temporal and spatial resolution. Visual interpretation of wall motion can be subjective and prone to error. Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve accuracy of wall motion assessment. METHODS: A total of 1038 patients undergoing rest electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated SPECT and echocardiography were included. Using echocardiography as truth, a DL-model (DL-model 1) was trained to predict the probability of abnormal wall motion. Of the 1038 patients, 317 were used to train a DL-model (DL-model 2) to assess regional wall motion. A 10-fold cross-validation was adopted. Diagnostic performance of DL was compared with human readers and quantitative parameters. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accuracy (ACC) of DL model (AUC: .82 [95% CI: .79-.85]; ACC: .88) were higher than human (AUC: .77 [95% CI: .73-.81]; ACC: .82; P < .001) and quantitative parameter (AUC: .74 [95% CI: .66-.81]; ACC: .78; P < .05). The net reclassification index (NRI) was 7.7%. The AUC and accuracy of DL model for per-segment and per-vessel territory diagnosis were also higher than human reader. The DL model generated results within 30 seconds with operable guided user interface (GUI) and therefore could provide preliminary interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: DL can be used to improve interpretation of rest SPECT wall motion as compared with current human readers and quantitative parameter diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".