Balancing Speed and Accuracy in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Function Post-Processing: Comparing 2 Levels of Automation in 3 Vendors to Manual Assessment
| Autor: | David E. Sosnovik, G J H Snel, Rudi Dierckx, Ronald Borra, Christopher Nguyen, Sharon Poort, Birgitta K. Velthuis, Vincent M. van Deursen, Riemer H. J. A. Slart, Niek H J Prakken |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Basic and Translational Research and Imaging Methodology Development in Groningen (BRIDGE), Molecular Neuroscience and Ageing Research (MOLAR), Translational Immunology Groningen (TRIGR), Cardiovascular Centre (CVC) |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Cardiac function curve
DIMENSIONS Medicine (General) Computer science Clinical Biochemistry SEGMENTATION cardiac magnetic resonance cardiac function reproducibility automation standardization tracing protocol Article Software R5-920 LEFT-VENTRICULAR VOLUMES Reproducibility Ejection fraction business.industry Healthy subjects QUANTIFICATION Automation Standard error business Cardiac magnetic resonance MRI Biomedical engineering |
| Zdroj: | Diagnostics, Vol 11, Iss 1758, p 1758 (2021) Diagnostics Diagnostics, 11(10):1758. MDPI AG Diagnostics; Volume 11; Issue 10; Pages: 1758 |
| ISSN: | 2075-4418 |
| Popis: | Automating cardiac function assessment on cardiac magnetic resonance short-axis cines is faster and more reproducible than manual contour-tracing; however, accurately tracing basal contours remains challenging. Three automated post-processing software packages (Level 1) were compared to manual assessment. Subsequently, automated basal tracings were manually adjusted using a standardized protocol combined with software package-specific relative-to-manual standard error correction (Level 2). All post-processing was performed in 65 healthy subjects. Manual contour-tracing was performed separately from Level 1 and 2 automated analysis. Automated measurements were considered accurate when the difference was equal or less than the maximum manual inter-observer disagreement percentage. Level 1 (2.1 & PLUSMN; 1.0 min) and Level 2 automated (5.2 & PLUSMN; 1.3 min) were faster and more reproducible than manual (21.1 & PLUSMN; 2.9 min) post-processing, the maximum inter-observer disagreement was 6%. Compared to manual, Level 1 automation had wide limits of agreement. The most reliable software package obtained more accurate measurements in Level 2 compared to Level 1 automation: left ventricular end-diastolic volume, 98% and 53%; ejection fraction, 98% and 60%; mass, 70% and 3%; right ventricular end-diastolic volume, 98% and 28%; ejection fraction, 80% and 40%, respectively. Level 1 automated cardiac function post-processing is fast and highly reproducible with varying accuracy. Level 2 automation balances speed and accuracy. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|