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.
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.