Ex-vivo validation of nine algorithms for quantifying infarcts with late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Sascha Kopic, Einar Heiberg, Henrik Engblom, Marcus Carlsson, David Nordlund, Robert Jablonowski, Mikael Kanski, Christos Xanthis, Sebastian Bidhult, Anthony H Aletras, Håkan Arheden
{"title":"Ex-vivo validation of nine algorithms for quantifying infarcts with late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance.","authors":"Sascha Kopic, Einar Heiberg, Henrik Engblom, Marcus Carlsson, David Nordlund, Robert Jablonowski, Mikael Kanski, Christos Xanthis, Sebastian Bidhult, Anthony H Aletras, Håkan Arheden","doi":"10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In cardiovascular magnetic resonance, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) is the standard method to visualize myocardial infarction (MI). Many algorithms quantifying infarct size in LGE images exist. However, only few algorithms have been validated, i.e., benchmarked against an ex-vivo measurement. Furthermore, the reported algorithm performance varies considerably between studies.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the performance of all infarct measurement algorithms against an ex-vivo measurement and to promote a discourse regarding advantages and disadvantages of individual measurement methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MI was induced in 22 pigs. In-vivo LGE imaging was conducted on d0, d3 or d7 post-MI. For ex-vivo validation infarct was measured using high-resolution T1-weighted images. In-vivo infarct size was measured using the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM), n-SD from remote (2,3,5, and 6 SD), feature analysis and combined thresholding (FACT), expectation maximization-weighted A priori information (EWA), Heiberg-08 and Otsu algorithms and manual delineation. No manual adjustments were made to algorithm delineations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clear differences in variance and bias were observed between algorithm-based methods, and no method performed optimally in this heterogeneous dataset where the best had a bias of -0.48±3.1, -0.3±4.4%, 2.3±4.2% left ventricle for EWA, FWHM, and FACT, respectively. Manual delineation by experienced observers performed well with a bias of 1.9±5.4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EWA, Heiberg-08, FWHM, and FACT all perform on par with manual delineation, however, Heiberg-08, and FWHM are not suitable for phase sensitive inversion recovery images. The technique used to measure infarct size should be disclosed in clinical trials and in original research. Caution should be applied when comparing datasets employing different infarct quantification methods. Manual infarct delineation by experienced readers remains a reliable technique to measure infarct size.</p>","PeriodicalId":15221,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance","volume":" ","pages":"101915"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101915","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In cardiovascular magnetic resonance, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) is the standard method to visualize myocardial infarction (MI). Many algorithms quantifying infarct size in LGE images exist. However, only few algorithms have been validated, i.e., benchmarked against an ex-vivo measurement. Furthermore, the reported algorithm performance varies considerably between studies.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of all infarct measurement algorithms against an ex-vivo measurement and to promote a discourse regarding advantages and disadvantages of individual measurement methods.

Methods: MI was induced in 22 pigs. In-vivo LGE imaging was conducted on d0, d3 or d7 post-MI. For ex-vivo validation infarct was measured using high-resolution T1-weighted images. In-vivo infarct size was measured using the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM), n-SD from remote (2,3,5, and 6 SD), feature analysis and combined thresholding (FACT), expectation maximization-weighted A priori information (EWA), Heiberg-08 and Otsu algorithms and manual delineation. No manual adjustments were made to algorithm delineations.

Results: Clear differences in variance and bias were observed between algorithm-based methods, and no method performed optimally in this heterogeneous dataset where the best had a bias of -0.48±3.1, -0.3±4.4%, 2.3±4.2% left ventricle for EWA, FWHM, and FACT, respectively. Manual delineation by experienced observers performed well with a bias of 1.9±5.4%.

Conclusion: EWA, Heiberg-08, FWHM, and FACT all perform on par with manual delineation, however, Heiberg-08, and FWHM are not suitable for phase sensitive inversion recovery images. The technique used to measure infarct size should be disclosed in clinical trials and in original research. Caution should be applied when comparing datasets employing different infarct quantification methods. Manual infarct delineation by experienced readers remains a reliable technique to measure infarct size.

晚期钆增强心血管磁共振定量梗死的九种算法的离体验证。
背景:在心血管磁共振中,晚期钆增强(LGE)是观察心肌梗死(MI)的标准方法。目前存在许多量化LGE图像梗死面积的算法。然而,只有少数算法得到了验证,即针对离体测量进行基准测试。此外,不同研究报告的算法性能差异很大。目的:本研究的目的是比较所有梗死测量算法与离体测量的性能,并促进关于单个测量方法的优点和缺点的论述。方法:对22头猪进行心肌梗死诱导。在心肌梗死后第10、3、7天进行活体LGE成像。对于离体验证,使用高分辨率t1加权图像测量梗死。使用半最大值全宽度(FWHM)、远程n-SD(2、3、5和6SD)、特征分析和组合阈值(FACT)、期望最大化加权先验信息(EWA)、Heiberg-08和Otsu算法以及人工描绘来测量体内梗死面积。没有对算法描述进行手动调整。结果:基于算法的方法在方差和偏倚方面存在明显差异,没有一种方法在该异构数据集中表现最佳,EWA、FWHM和FACT的最佳偏倚分别为-0.48±3.1、-0.3±4.4%、2.3±4.2%。由经验丰富的观测者手工描绘效果良好,偏差为1.9±5.4%。结论:EWA、Heiberg-08、FWHM和FACT与人工圈定效果相当,但Heiberg-08和FWHM不适用于PSIR图像。用于测量梗死面积的技术应在临床试验和原始研究中公开。在比较采用不同梗死定量方法的数据集时应谨慎。由经验丰富的读者手动划定梗死范围仍然是测量梗死大小的可靠技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) publishes high-quality articles on all aspects of basic, translational and clinical research on the design, development, manufacture, and evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods applied to the cardiovascular system. Topical areas include, but are not limited to: New applications of magnetic resonance to improve the diagnostic strategies, risk stratification, characterization and management of diseases affecting the cardiovascular system. New methods to enhance or accelerate image acquisition and data analysis. Results of multicenter, or larger single-center studies that provide insight into the utility of CMR. Basic biological perceptions derived by CMR methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信