Estimation of Segmental Longitudinal Strain in Transesophageal Echocardiography by Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmental longitudinal strain (SLS) of the left ventricle (LV) is an important prognostic indicator for evaluating regional LV dysfunction, in particular for diagnosing and managing myocardial ischemia. Current techniques for strain estimation require significant manual intervention and expertise, limiting their efficiency and making them too resource-intensive for monitoring purposes. This study introduces the first automated pipeline, autoStrain, for SLS estimation in transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) using deep learning (DL) methods for motion estimation. We present a comparative analysis of two DL approaches: TeeFlow, based on the RAFT optical flow model for dense frame-to-frame predictions, and TeeTracker, based on the CoTracker point trajectory model for sparse long-sequence predictions. As ground truth motion data from real echocardiographic sequences are hardly accessible, we took advantage of a unique simulation pipeline (SIMUS) to generate a highly realistic synthetic TEE (synTEE) dataset of 80 patients with ground truth myocardial motion to train and evaluate both models. Our evaluation shows that TeeTracker outperforms TeeFlow in accuracy, achieving a mean distance error in motion estimation of 0.65 $\pm$ 0.20 mm on a synTEE test dataset. Clinical validation on 16 patients further demonstrated that SLS estimation with our autoStrain pipeline aligned with clinical references, achieving a mean difference (95% limits of agreement) of 1.09% (-8.90% to 11.09%). Incorporation of simulated ischemia in the synTEE data improved the accuracy of the models in quantifying abnormal deformation. Our findings indicate that integrating AI-driven motion estimation with TEE can significantly enhance the precision and efficiency of cardiac function assessment in clinical settings.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".