Quality control of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging segmentation, feature tracking, aortic flow, and native T1 analysis using automated batch processing in the UK Biobank study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Automated algorithms are regularly used to analyse cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) images. Validating data output reliability from this method is crucial for enabling widespread adoption. We outline a visual quality control (VQC) process for image analysis using automated batch processing. We assess the performance of automated analysis and the reliability of replacing visual checks with statistical outlier (SO) removal approach in UK Biobank CMR scans. Methods and results We included 1987 CMR scans from the UK Biobank COVID-19 imaging study. We used batch processing software (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc.—CVI42) to automatically extract chamber volumetric data, strain, native T1, and aortic flow data. The automated analysis outputs (∼62 000 videos and 2000 images) were visually checked by six experienced clinicians using a standardized approach and a custom-built R Shiny app. Inter-observer variability was assessed. Data from scans passing VQC were compared with a SO removal QC method in a subset of healthy individuals (n = 1069). Automated segmentation was highly rated, with over 95% of scans passing VQC. Overall inter-observer agreement was very good (Gwet’s AC2 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.84, 0.94). No difference in overall data derived from VQC or SO removal in healthy individuals was observed. Conclusion Automated image analysis using CVI42 prototypes for UK Biobank CMR scans demonstrated high quality. Larger UK Biobank data sets analysed using these automated algorithms do not require in-depth VQC. SO removal is sufficient as a QC measure, with operator discretion for visual checks based on population or research objectives.
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 | 0.042 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".