Deep learning to diagnose cardiac amyloidosis from cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is part of the diagnostic work-up for cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Deep learning (DL) is an application of artificial intelligence that may allow to automatically analyze CMR findings and establish the likelihood of CA. 1.5 T CMR was performed in 206 subjects wit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance Vol. 22; no. 1; p. 84
Main Authors Martini, Nicola, Aimo, Alberto, Barison, Andrea, Della Latta, Daniele, Vergaro, Giuseppe, Aquaro, Giovanni Donato, Ripoli, Andrea, Emdin, Michele, Chiappino, Dante
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central Ltd 07.12.2020
BioMed Central
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is part of the diagnostic work-up for cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Deep learning (DL) is an application of artificial intelligence that may allow to automatically analyze CMR findings and establish the likelihood of CA. 1.5 T CMR was performed in 206 subjects with suspected CA (n = 100, 49% with unexplained left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy; n = 106, 51% with blood dyscrasia and suspected light-chain amyloidosis). Patients were randomly assigned to the training (n = 134, 65%), validation (n = 30, 15%), and testing subgroups (n = 42, 20%). Short axis, 2-chamber, 4-chamber late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images were evaluated by 3 networks (DL algorithms). The tags "amyloidosis present" or "absent" were attributed when the average probability of CA from the 3 networks was ≥ 50% or < 50%, respectively. The DL strategy was compared to a machine learning (ML) algorithm considering all manually extracted features (LV volumes, mass and function, LGE pattern, early blood-pool darkening, pericardial and pleural effusion, etc.), to reproduce exam reading by an experienced operator. The DL strategy displayed good diagnostic accuracy (88%), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.982. The precision (positive predictive value), recall score (sensitivity), and F1 score (a measure of test accuracy) were 83%, 95%, and 89% respectively. A ML algorithm considering all CMR features had a similar diagnostic yield to DL strategy (AUC 0.952 vs. 0.982; p = 0.39). A DL approach evaluating LGE acquisitions displayed a similar diagnostic performance for CA to a ML-based approach, which simulates CMR reading by experienced operators.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1097-6647
1532-429X
DOI:10.1186/s12968-020-00690-4