Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSalte, Ivar Mjåland
dc.contributor.authorØstvik, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorOlaisen, Sindre Hellum
dc.contributor.authorKarlsen, Sigve
dc.contributor.authorDahlslett, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorSmistad, Erik
dc.contributor.authorEriksen-Volnes, Torfinn Kirknes
dc.contributor.authorBrunvand, Harald
dc.contributor.authorHaugaa, Kristina Ingrid Helena Hermann
dc.contributor.authorEdvardsen, Thor
dc.contributor.authorDalen, Håvard
dc.contributor.authorLøvstakken, Lasse
dc.contributor.authorGrenne, Bjørnar Leangen
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-18T14:23:21Z
dc.date.available2023-07-18T14:23:21Z
dc.date.created2023-05-02T09:09:12Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2023, .en_US
dc.identifier.issn0894-7317
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3079725
dc.description.abstractAims Assessment of left ventricular (LV) function by echocardiography is hampered by modest test-retest reproducibility. A novel artificial intelligence (AI) method based on deep learning provides fully automated measurements of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and may improve the clinical utility of echocardiography by reducing user-related variability. The aim of this study was to assess within-patient test-retest reproducibility of LV GLS measured by the novel AI method in repeated echocardiograms recorded by different echocardiographers and to compare the results to manual measurements. Methods Two test-retest data sets (n = 40 and n = 32) were obtained at separate centers. Repeated recordings were acquired in immediate succession by 2 different echocardiographers at each center. For each data set, 4 readers measured GLS in both recordings using a semiautomatic method to construct test-retest interreader and intrareader scenarios. Agreement, mean absolute difference, and minimal detectable change (MDC) were compared to analyses by AI. In a subset of 10 patients, beat-to-beat variability in 3 cardiac cycles was assessed by 2 readers and AI. Results Test-retest variability was lower with AI compared with interreader scenarios (data set I: MDC = 3.7 vs 5.5, mean absolute difference = 1.4 vs 2.1, respectively; data set II: MDC = 3.9 vs 5.2, mean absolute difference = 1.6 vs 1.9, respectively; all P < .05). There was bias in GLS measurements in 13 of 24 test-retest interreader scenarios (largest bias, 3.2 strain units). In contrast, there was no bias in measurements by AI. Beat-to-beat MDCs were 1,5, 2.1, and 2.3 for AI and the 2 readers, respectively. Processing time for analyses of GLS by the AI method was 7.9 ± 2.8 seconds. Conclusion A fast AI method for automated measurements of LV GLS reduced test-retest variability and removed bias between readers in both test-retest data sets. By improving the precision and reproducibility, AI may increase the clinical utility of echocardiography.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleDeep Learning for Improved Precision and Reproducibility of Left Ventricular Strain in Echocardiography: A Test-Retest Studyen_US
dc.title.alternativeDeep Learning for Improved Precision and Reproducibility of Left Ventricular Strain in Echocardiography: A Test-Retest Studyen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber0en_US
dc.source.journalJournal of the American Society of Echocardiographyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.echo.2023.02.017
dc.identifier.cristin2144589
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal