Validation of machine learning models for estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction on point-of-care ultrasound: insights on features that impact performance.
Christina L Luong, Mohammad H Jafari, Delaram Behnami, Yaksh R Shah, Lynn Straatman, Nathan Van Woudenberg, Leah Christoff, Nancy Gwadry, Nathaniel M Hawkins, Eric C Sayre, Darwin Yeung, Michael Tsang, Ken Gin, John Jue, Parvathy Nair, Purang Abolmaesumi, Teresa Tsang
{"title":"Validation of machine learning models for estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction on point-of-care ultrasound: insights on features that impact performance.","authors":"Christina L Luong, Mohammad H Jafari, Delaram Behnami, Yaksh R Shah, Lynn Straatman, Nathan Van Woudenberg, Leah Christoff, Nancy Gwadry, Nathaniel M Hawkins, Eric C Sayre, Darwin Yeung, Michael Tsang, Ken Gin, John Jue, Parvathy Nair, Purang Abolmaesumi, Teresa Tsang","doi":"10.1186/s44156-024-00043-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Machine learning (ML) algorithms can accurately estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from echocardiography, but their performance on cardiac point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is not well understood.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluate the performance of an ML model for estimation of LVEF on cardiac POCUS compared with Level III echocardiographers' interpretation and formal echo reported LVEF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinicians at a tertiary care heart failure clinic prospectively scanned 138 participants using hand-carried devices. Video data were analyzed offline by an ML model for LVEF. We compared the ML model's performance with Level III echocardiographers' interpretation and echo reported LVEF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 138 participants scanned, yielding 1257 videos. The ML model generated LVEF predictions on 341 videos. We observed a good intraclass correlation (ICC) between the ML model's predictions and the reference standards (ICC = 0.77-0.84). When comparing LVEF estimates for randomized single POCUS videos, the ICC between the ML model and Level III echocardiographers' estimates was 0.772, and it was 0.778 for videos where quantitative LVEF was feasible. When the Level III echocardiographer reviewed all POCUS videos for a participant, the ICC improved to 0.794 and 0.843 when only accounting for studies that could be segmented. The ML model's LVEF estimates also correlated well with LVEF derived from formal echocardiogram reports (ICC = 0.798).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that clinician-driven cardiac POCUS produces ML model LVEF estimates that correlate well with expert interpretation and echo reported LVEF.</p>","PeriodicalId":45749,"journal":{"name":"Echo Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Echo Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44156-024-00043-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Machine learning (ML) algorithms can accurately estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from echocardiography, but their performance on cardiac point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is not well understood.
Objectives: We evaluate the performance of an ML model for estimation of LVEF on cardiac POCUS compared with Level III echocardiographers' interpretation and formal echo reported LVEF.
Methods: Clinicians at a tertiary care heart failure clinic prospectively scanned 138 participants using hand-carried devices. Video data were analyzed offline by an ML model for LVEF. We compared the ML model's performance with Level III echocardiographers' interpretation and echo reported LVEF.
Results: There were 138 participants scanned, yielding 1257 videos. The ML model generated LVEF predictions on 341 videos. We observed a good intraclass correlation (ICC) between the ML model's predictions and the reference standards (ICC = 0.77-0.84). When comparing LVEF estimates for randomized single POCUS videos, the ICC between the ML model and Level III echocardiographers' estimates was 0.772, and it was 0.778 for videos where quantitative LVEF was feasible. When the Level III echocardiographer reviewed all POCUS videos for a participant, the ICC improved to 0.794 and 0.843 when only accounting for studies that could be segmented. The ML model's LVEF estimates also correlated well with LVEF derived from formal echocardiogram reports (ICC = 0.798).
Conclusion: Our results suggest that clinician-driven cardiac POCUS produces ML model LVEF estimates that correlate well with expert interpretation and echo reported LVEF.
期刊介绍:
Echo Research and Practice aims to be the premier international journal for physicians, sonographers, nurses and other allied health professionals practising echocardiography and other cardiac imaging modalities. This open-access journal publishes quality clinical and basic research, reviews, videos, education materials and selected high-interest case reports and videos across all echocardiography modalities and disciplines, including paediatrics, anaesthetics, general practice, acute medicine and intensive care. Multi-modality studies primarily featuring the use of cardiac ultrasound in clinical practice, in association with Cardiac Computed Tomography, Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance or Nuclear Cardiology are of interest. Topics include, but are not limited to: 2D echocardiography 3D echocardiography Comparative imaging techniques – CCT, CMR and Nuclear Cardiology Congenital heart disease, including foetal echocardiography Contrast echocardiography Critical care echocardiography Deformation imaging Doppler echocardiography Interventional echocardiography Intracardiac echocardiography Intraoperative echocardiography Prosthetic valves Stress echocardiography Technical innovations Transoesophageal echocardiography Valve disease.