EasyPISA: Automatic Integrated PISA Measurements of Mitral Regurgitation From 2-D Color-Doppler Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) method is a well-established approach for mitral regurgitation (MR) quantification. However, it exhibits high inter-observer variability and inaccuracies in cases of non-hemispherical flow convergence and non-holosystolic MR. To address this, we present EasyPISA, a framework for automated integrated PISA measurements taken directly from 2-D color-Doppler sequences. METHODS: We trained convolutional neural networks (UNet/Attention UNet) on 1171 images from 196 recordings (54 patients) to detect and segment flow convergence zones in 2-D color-Doppler images. Different preprocessing schemes and model architectures were compared. Flow convergence surface areas were estimated, accounting for non-hemispherical convergence, and regurgitant volume (RVol) was computed by integrating the flow rate over time. EasyPISA was retrospectively applied to 26 MR patient examinations, comparing results with reference PISA RVol measurements, severity grades, and cMRI RVol measurements for 13 patients. RESULTS: The UNet trained on duplex images achieved the best results (precision: 0.63, recall: 0.95, dice: 0.58, flow rate error: 10.4 ml/s). Mitigation of false-positive segmentation on the atrial side of the mitral valve was achieved through integration with a mitral valve segmentation network. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.83 between EasyPISA and PISA, and 0.66 between EasyPISA and cMRI. Relative standard deviations were 46% and 53%, respectively. Receiver operator characteristics demonstrated a mean area under the curve between 0.90 and 0.97 for EasyPISA RVol estimates and reference severity grades. CONCLUSION: EasyPISA demonstrates promising results for fully automated integrated PISA measurements in MR, offering potential benefits in workload reduction and mitigating inter-observer variability in MR assessment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".