Automated mitral inflow Doppler peak velocity measurement using deep learning.

Doppler echocardiography is a widely utilised non-invasive imaging modality for assessing the functionality of heart valves, including the mitral valve. Manual assessments of Doppler traces by clinicians introduce variability, prompting the need for automated solutions. This study introduces an innovative deep learning model for automated detection of peak velocity measurements from mitral inflow Doppler images, independent from Electrocardiogram information. A dataset of Doppler images annotated by multiple expert cardiologists was established, serving as a robust benchmark. The model leverages heatmap regression networks, achieving 96% detection accuracy. The model discrepancy with the expert consensus falls comfortably within the range of inter- and intra-observer variability in measuring Doppler peak velocities. The dataset and models are open-source, fostering further research and clinical application.

Automated echocardiographic left ventricular dimension assessment in dogs using artificial intelligence: Development and validation.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) could improve accuracy and reproducibility of echocardiographic measurements in dogs. HYPOTHESIS: A neural network can be trained to measure echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) linear dimensions in dogs. ANIMALS: Training dataset: 1398 frames from 461 canine echocardiograms from a single specialist center. VALIDATION: 50 additional echocardiograms from the same center. METHODS: Training dataset: a right parasternal 4-chamber long axis frame from each study, labeled by 1 of 18 echocardiographers, marking anterior and posterior points of the septum and free wall. VALIDATION DATASET: End-diastolic and end-systolic frames from 50 studies, annotated twice (blindly) by 13 experts, producing 26 measurements of each site from each frame. The neural network also made these measurements. We quantified its accuracy as the deviation from the expert consensus, using the individual-expert deviation from consensus as context for acceptable variation. The deviation of the AI measurement away from the expert consensus was assessed on each individual frame and compared with the root-mean-square-variation of the individual expert opinions away from that consensus. RESULTS: For the septum in end-diastole, individual expert opinions deviated by 0.12 cm from the consensus, while the AI deviated by 0.11 cm (P = .61). For LVD, the corresponding values were 0.20 cm for experts and 0.13 cm for AI (P = .65); for the free wall, experts 0.20 cm, AI 0.13 cm (P < .01). In end-systole, there were no differences between individual expert and AI performances. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: An artificial intelligence network can be trained to adequately measure linear LV dimensions, with performance indistinguishable from that of experts.

Automated Left Ventricular Dimension Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence Developed and Validated by a UK-Wide Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: requires training and validation to standards expected of humans. We developed an online platform and established the Unity Collaborative to build a dataset of expertise from 17 hospitals for training, validation, and standardization of such techniques. METHODS: The training dataset consisted of 2056 individual frames drawn at random from 1265 parasternal long-axis video-loops of patients undergoing clinical echocardiography in 2015 to 2016. Nine experts labeled these images using our online platform. From this, we trained a convolutional neural network to identify keypoints. Subsequently, 13 experts labeled a validation dataset of the end-systolic and end-diastolic frame from 100 new video-loops, twice each. The 26-opinion consensus was used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was precision SD, the SD of the differences between AI measurement and expert consensus. RESULTS: In the validation dataset, the AI's precision SD for left ventricular internal dimension was 3.5 mm. For context, precision SD of individual expert measurements against the expert consensus was 4.4 mm. Intraclass correlation coefficient between AI and expert consensus was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.904-0.944), compared with 0.817 (0.778-0.954) between individual experts and expert consensus. For interventricular septum thickness, precision SD was 1.8 mm for AI (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.809; 0.729-0.967), versus 2.0 mm for individuals (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.641; 0.568-0.716). For posterior wall thickness, precision SD was 1.4 mm for AI (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.535 [95% CI, 0.379-0.661]), versus 2.2 mm for individuals (0.366 [0.288-0.462]). We present all images and annotations. This highlights challenging cases, including poor image quality and tapered ventricles. CONCLUSIONS: Experts at multiple institutions successfully cooperated to build a collaborative AI. This performed as well as individual experts. Future echocardiographic AI research should use a consensus of experts as a reference. Our collaborative welcomes new partners who share our commitment to publish all methods, code, annotations, and results openly.