Abstract
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging provides reliable assessments of biventricular morphology and function. Since manual post-processing is time-consuming and prone to observer variability, efforts have been directed towards novel artificial intelligence-based fully automated analyses. Hence, we sought to investigate the impact of artificial intelligence-based fully automated assessments on the inter-study variability of biventricular volumes and function. Eighteen participants (11 with normal, 3 with heart failure and preserved and 4 with reduced ejection fraction (EF)) underwent serial CMR imaging at in median 63 days (range 49–87) interval. Short axis cine stacks were acquired for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) mass, LV and right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic, end-systolic and stroke volumes as well as EF. Assessments were performed manually (QMass, Medis Medical Imaging Systems, Leiden, Netherlands) by an experienced (3 years) and inexperienced reader (no active reporting, 45 min of training with five cases from the SCMR consensus data) as well as fully automated (suiteHEART, Neosoft, Pewaukee, WI, USA) without any manual corrections. Inter-study reproducibility was overall excellent with respect to LV volumetric indices, best for the experienced observer (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.98, coefficient of variation (CoV, < 9.6%) closely followed by automated analyses (ICC > 0.93, CoV < 12.4%) and lowest for the inexperienced observer (ICC > 0.86, CoV < 18.8%). Inter-study reproducibility of RV volumes was excellent for the experienced observer (ICC > 0.88, CoV < 10.7%) but considerably lower for automated and inexperienced manual analyses (ICC > 0.69 and > 0.46, CoV < 22.8% and < 28.7% respectively). In this cohort, fully automated analyses allowed reliable serial investigations of LV volumes with comparable inter-study reproducibility to manual analyses performed by an experienced CMR observer. In contrast, RV automated quantification with current algorithms still relied on manual post-processing for reliability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Introduction
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is the reference standard for the assessment of cardiac morphology and function1,2, amongst which left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is most commonly used for cardiovascular risk assessment and clinical decision making3,4. Compared to echocardiography, CMR demonstrates superior inter-study reproducibility resulting in considerably lower sample sizes required to show clinically relevant changes in left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) dimensions and function5,6. However, in clinical routine CMR requires extensive post-processing, which is time-consuming, tedious and prone to observer variability7,8,9,10. Despite efforts directed towards automation of volume and mass assessments, most approaches require manual preparation and preselection of CMR images11,12. More recently, novel artificial intelligence (AI)-based deep learning algorithms were introduced which allow for fully automated post-processing of LV mass and biventricular volumes showing promising initial results including risk stratification following acute myocardial infarction13,14. Data on interstudy reproducibility is of high clinical importance when it comes to follow-up surveys. Observer experience and variability may significantly impact the identification of subtle clinical changes between exams10. Hence, the current study aimed to assess the impact of fully automated assessments on inter-study variability and reliability in comparison to an experienced and inexperienced observer to define the current potential and limitations of fully automated post-processing.
Methods
Study population
The study population consisted of 18 participants which were scanned twice at a median interval of 63 days (range 49–87) using a standardized imaging protocol for anatomy and function15,16. All participants were in stable sinus rhythm during image acquisition. A minimum of 6 weeks between the first and second scan was required to avoid recollection bias of the involved CMR staff. Care was taken that acquisitions were performed at the same levels of the heart. Care was taken that no change in symptoms and medication occurred in patients with heart failure. Furthermore, new onset of cardiac disease was excluded in healthy subjects. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Charité-University Medicine Berlin and was conducted according to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. All participants gave written informed consent before randomization. The study was supported by the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK).
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging
Electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) cine images were acquired in 10–16 equidistant short axis (SA) planes covering both entire ventricles on a clinical MR scanner (1.5 T, Achieva, Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands). Imaging parameters were as follows: 25 frames/cardiac cycle, pixel spacing 0.8 mm × 0.8 mm, 8 mm slice thickness as well as inter-slice gap, TE 1.5 ms, TR 3 ms.
Manual volumetric assessments were performed in SA orientations according to standardized recommendations17 by an experienced CMR operator (observer A, cardiologist, 3 years of CMR experience) and an inexperienced operator (observer B, trainee in cardiology, no experience in reporting or CMR segmentation), who was trained 45 min by the experienced observer with five cases from the SCMR consensus data18. Long-axis views (4-chamber and 2-chamber) were crosslinked to define RV and LV basal segments. Dedicated commercially available post-processing software was employed for manual assessments (QMass, Version 3.1.16.0, Medis Medical Imaging Systems, Leiden, The Netherlands). Fully automated analyses were performed in SA stacks with suiteHEART (Version 4.0.6, Neosoft, Pewaukee, WI, USA), Fig. 1. Papillary muscles were included within the myocardium. Fully automated analyses were not manually post-processed or validated, manual segmentations were not supported by any semi-automated processing e.g. threshold or edge detection. All operators were blinded to their previous as well as each other’s results. Volumetric analyses comprised LV mass, LV and RV end-diastolic/systolic (EDV/ESV) volumes as well as stroke volumes (SV) and EF. Interstudy agreements were evaluated for manual assessment of observer A, manual assessment of observer B as well as fully automated analyses.
Statistical analyses
Statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS Version 24 for Windows (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and Microsoft Excel. Continuous parameters are reported as mean and corresponding standard deviation (SD), changes from Exam 1 to 2 were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for dependent continuous parameters. An alpha level of 0.05 and below was considered statistically significant. Inter-study and inter-observer variability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) based on absolute agreement (excellent ICC > 0.74, good between 0.60 and 0.74, fair between 0.4 and 0.59 and poor below 0.4)19, the coefficient of variation (CoV, SD of mean difference divided by the mean (SD (MD))/mean) as well as Bland–Altman plots [mean difference between measurements with 95% confidence interval (CI)]20. Intra-observer reproducibility of the automated algorithm has been addressed previously yielding ICC = 1 and CoV 0%13. Sample sizes were calculated for the detection of absolute changes of 10 g LV mass, 10 ml LV and RV EDV/ESV/SV as well as 5% change in LV/RV-EF for a power of 80% and an α-error of 0.05 using the formula \(n=f \left(\alpha , P\right)*{\sigma }^{2}*\frac{2 }{{\delta }^{2}}\) where n = sample size, f = factor taking α (level of significance) and P (study power) into account (f = 7.85 for α = 0.05 and P = 0.8), σ = interstudy standard deviation of the mean difference between Exam 1 and 2 and δ the magnitude of differences to be detected5,6.
Results
Study population
The study population consisted of 18 participants, 11 with normal biventricular function and 7 with heart failure, the latter including 3 patients with heart failure and preserved (HFpEF) and 4 patients with reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. The mean age was 46 years with a SD of 23. Ten participants were male and 8 female. All SA stacks were assessed by observers A and B as well as by the fully automated software algorithm. Results for LV and RV volumes are reported in Table 1. LV volumes and function were not significantly different between exams 1 and 2 for observer one and two as well as automated analyses. Statistically significant differences in RV volumetry were observed for observer A and the automated software algorithm reported in Table 1. Manual post-processing took on average 8.5 ± 1.7 min and 13.2 ± 2.8 min for the experienced and inexperienced observer, as opposed to automated analyses with < 1 min/SA stack.
Reproducibility
For interstudy reproducibility, mean differences as well as corresponding SD, ICC and CoV of LV and RV volumes are reported in Table 2, corresponding Bland–Altman plots are displayed in Figs. 2, 3 and 4. LV reproducibility was overall excellent (ICC 0.86–1.00), best for observer A (ICC > 0.98), followed by fully automated analyses (ICC > 0.93) and observer B (ICC > 0.86). Interstudy reproducibility of RV volume was excellent for observer A (ICC > 0.88), good to excellent for automated analyses (ICC 0.69–0.92) and fair to excellent for observer B (ICC 0.46–0.95). Similarly, lowest interstudy variability was found in LV volumes for observer A (CoV < 9.6%) followed by fully automated analyses (CoV < 12.4%) and observer B (CoV < 18.8%). Regarding RV analyses, lowest interstudy variability was found for observer A (CoV < 10.7%) whilst fully automated analyses (CoV < 22.8) as well as observer B (CoV < 28.7%) demonstrated considerable inter-study variability.
For interobserver reproducibility, mean differences as well as corresponding SD, ICC and CoV of LV and RV volumes are reported in Table S1 (supplementary material) comparing automated with experienced and inexperienced manual analyses as well as comparing experienced and inexperienced manual analyses, showing overall excellent interobserver reproducibility of LV analyses (ICC 0.92–0.99) and fair to excellent reproducibility of RV metrics (ICC 0.43–0.97). Fully automated LV analyses shower better agreement with experienced than with inexperienced analyses. The automated algorithm overestimated RV EDV (mean difference 12.9 ± 13.8 ml/m2) and RV ESV (mean difference 10.5 ± 12.7 ml/m2) as compared to the experienced observer, while underestimated RV ESV (mean difference − 14.8 ± 9.0 ml/m2) as compared to the inexperienced observer.
Sample size calculations
Sample sizes required for the detection of absolute changes in volumetric indices (10 g mass, 10 ml in volume or 5% EF) are reported in Table 3. Sample sizes were smallest for observer A, followed by fully automated analyses and largest for observer B. Whilst samples sizes of automated analyses for LV volumes were similar to those of observer A, sample sizes of automated analyses for RV volumes were similar to those of observer B. LV volume sample sizes ranged between n = 5 for LV mass and n = 11 for ESV for observer A, between n = 6 for EF and n = 32 for EDV for automated analyses and between n = 19 for EF to n = 89 for EDV for observer B. RV volume samples sizes ranged between n = 6 for ESV and n = 9 for SV for observer A, between n = 27 for ESV and n = 77 for EDV for automated analyses and between n = 42 for ESV and n = 73 for SV for observer B.
Discussion
The present study evaluates the interstudy variability of LV mass as well as LV and RV volumes quantified using a fully automated post-processing algorithm. Concerning LV analyses, the results demonstrate similarly high interstudy reproducibility of fully automated analyses as compared to an experienced CMR observer and show superior performance of fully automated analyses as compared to an inexperienced observer. In contrast, reliability of automated RV analyses is notably lower as compared to an experienced CMR observer.
CMR imaging represents the reference standard for the assessment of cardiac morphology and function due to a precise evaluation of bSSFP SA stacks covering the entire LV and RV1. However, in many departments CMR examinations are still not easily available since MR scanners are not always dedicated to CMR and consequently examinations and post-processing of the images are relatively time-consuming compared to other examinations. As a result cost-effectiveness is lower compared with competing methodology such as echocardiographic approaches even though CMR diagnostic information can often be considered of higher value7,9. Notwithstanding, mounting evidence emphasizes the need of CMR surveys in an increasing number of cardiac diseases21. To achieve high quality diagnostic examinations experience and training are important with a distinct effect on volumetric analyses and are particularly required in challenging anatomic conditions, e.g. patients with congenital heart disease10,22. User-independent fully automated assessments have been introduced for the evaluation of biventricular volumes showing promising results11. Machine learning and AI-based algorithms23 may indeed complement varying levels of user experience. Furthermore, process efficiency may be strengthened considering SA stacks volumetric analyses may be already performed parallel to scanning e.g. during LGE imaging, and thus might reduce analysis time and ultimately costs. Our results support a reliable use of fully automated LV analyses, showing objective and reproducible results.
Recently, automated analyses demonstrated feasibility and equally predictive prognostic value in 1017 patients following acute myocardial infarction compared to conventional analyses by trained and experienced medical personal14. Several previous studies applying the proposed automated algorithm showed consistently high interobserver reproducibility with experienced CMR observers13,14. The feasibility and reliability of automated LV analyses in clinical routine imaging is further underlined by the present data demonstrating high interstudy reproducibility. Future applications may expand to automated tissue characterisation e.g. scar quantification14 as well as deformation imaging24. Deformation imaging has gained recognition for enhanced risk prediction beyond conventional volumetric derived functional analyses, e.g. following acute myocardial infarction25 as well as ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy26. However, ongoing discussions about the reproducibility of deformation based approaches27 and limited data from large clinical train still hamper its unrestricted clinical use. At the current time, cardiac volumetric analyses still remain the gold-standard for quantitative functional assessments, despite its inability to assess regional function.
Guidelines for clinical decision making are inevitably based upon thresholds28. In certain clinical scenarios, decision making heavily relies on changes between serial examinations e.g. recovery of LVEF following acute myocardial infarction to evaluate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy3. Serial examinations rely on the assumption that changes in cardiac mass and volumes are reliably detectable. However, most CMR imaging laboratories employ several CMR operators, often with different training experience, resulting in potential inter-observer variability if serial CMR examinations are analysed by different observers. This study confirms an overall excellent interstudy reproducibility for LV mass and volumes, best for manual assessments by an experienced observer and user-independent automated analyses and slightly lower for an inexperienced observer. Reproducibility of RV volumes was overall lower compared to LV metrics, which is in line with the available literature6. Whilst the experienced observer still achieved good to excellent reproducibility, variability between exams was high for the inexperienced observer. Automated assessments of RV volumes resulted in a slight improvement of reproducibility as compared to the inexperienced observer. We observed numerical differences for RV volumetry both for manual and automated analysis between the repeated exams. Even though they were statistically significant, their respective clinical relevance with a change of 2% in RV-EF should be interpreted with caution. On the other hand, defined cut-offs (e.g. for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) end-diastolic volumes beyond 110 ml/m2 for male and 100 ml/m2 for female patients or an EF below 40%29) require precise volume assessments. Thus, inaccuracies in RV volume assessments bear potential clinical consequences. The present data support current evidence that precise and correct quantifications of RV metrics remain challenging and still require dedicated training which is probably due to the more complex anatomy of the RV as compared to the LV10,30. Because a strong link between RV functional but not structural changes with prognosis following acute myocardial infarction has been demonstrated31, the field of automated RV assessment and required analysis refinement and improvement warrants further investigation.
Limitations
Sample size calculations and derived conclusions are based on n = 18 participants. Although reports indicate low sample sizes in CMR volume assessments5, statistical evaluations and generalisation may be limited. Detailed specifications of the automated algorithm that incorporates AI and deep learning models developed by the manufacturer are not disclosed; therefore, they cannot be described more precisely. The results of the study therefore apply to this specific cohort. Without knowing the exact types of scans used in the software’s training, it might be difficult to extrapolate the results to other cohorts, which should definitely be addressed in larger future studies. Furthermore, it will be interesting to address whether or not the results can be extrapolated to patients with a more demanding anatomy (e.g. patients with congenital heart disease).
Conclusion
In this cohort, fully automated user-independent analyses allowed reliable serial investigations of LV volumes and function with comparably high interstudy reproducibility in relation to manual analyses performed by an experienced CMR observer. In contrast, fully automated RV assessments did not yet provide satisfying interstudy reproducibility and still require manual post-processing corrections by an experienced reader.
Data availability
Regarding data availability, we confirm that all relevant data are within the paper and all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction from the corresponding author at the University Medical Centre Goettingen by researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
References
Pennell, D. J. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Circulation 121, 692–705. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.811547 (2010).
Eitel, I. et al. Comprehensive prognosis assessment by CMR imaging after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 1217–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1194 (2014).
Moss, A. J. et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 877–883. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa013474 (2002).
White, H. D. et al. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation 76, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.76.1.44 (1987).
Grothues, F. et al. Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two-dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am. J. Cardiol. 90, 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02381-0 (2002).
Grothues, F. et al. Interstudy reproducibility of right ventricular volumes, function, and mass with cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Am Heart J. 147, 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.005 (2004).
Petitjean, C. & Dacher, J.-N. A review of segmentation methods in short axis cardiac MR images. Med. Image Anal. 15, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2010.12.004 (2011).
Hautvast, G. L. T. F. et al. Accurate computer-aided quantification of left ventricular parameters: experience in 1555 cardiac magnetic resonance studies from the Framingham Heart Study. Magn. Reson. Med. 67, 1478–1486. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.23127 (2012).
Axel, L. & Sodickson, D. K. The need for speed: accelerating CMR imaging assessment of cardiac function. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging. 7, 893–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.04.015 (2014).
Beerbaum, P. et al. Cardiac function by MRI in congenital heart disease: impact of consensus training on interinstitutional variance. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 30, 956–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21948 (2009).
van Geuns, R. J. M. et al. Automatic quantitative left ventricular analysis of cine MR images by using three-dimensional information for contour detection. Radiology 240, 215–21. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2401050471 (2006).
Queirós, S. et al. Multi-centre validation of an automatic algorithm for fast 4D myocardial segmentation in cine CMR datasets. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 17, 1118–1127. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev247 (2016).
Backhaus, S. J. et al. Fully automated quantification of biventricular volumes and function in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: applicability to clinical routine settings. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 21, 692. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-019-0532-9 (2019).
Schuster, A. et al. Fully automated cardiac assessment for diagnostic and prognostic stratification following myocardial infarction. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 9, e016612. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.016612 (2020).
Kramer, C. M., Barkhausen, J., Flamm, S. D., Kim, R. J. & Nagel, E. Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocols 2013 update. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 15, 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-15-91 (2013).
Schulz-Menger, J. et al. Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) board of trustees task force on standardized post processing. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 15, 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-15-35 (2013).
Schulz-Menger, J. et al. Standardized image interpretation and post-processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance—2020 update: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR): Board of Trustees Task Force on Standardized Post-Processing. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 22, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-020-00610-6 (2020).
Suinesiaputra, A. et al. Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 17, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9 (2015).
Morton, G. et al. Inter-study reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 14, 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429X-14-43 (2012).
Bland, M. & Altman, D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 327, 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 (1986).
von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, F. & Schulz-Menger, J. Role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 18, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-016-0225-6 (2016).
Karamitsos, T. D., Hudsmith, L. E., Selvanayagam, J. B., Neubauer, S. & Francis, J. M. Operator induced variability in left ventricular measurements with cardiovascular magnetic resonance is improved after training. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 9, 777–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10976640701545073 (2007).
Leiner, T. et al. Machine learning in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: basic concepts and applications. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 21, 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-019-0575-y (2019).
Backhaus, S. J. et al. Head-to-head comparison of cardiovascular MR feature tracking cine versus acquisition-based deformation strain imaging using myocardial tagging and strain encoding. Magn. Reson. Med. 85, 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28437 (2021).
Eitel, I. et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking for optimized prediction of cardiovascular events following myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging. 11, 1433–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.11.034 (2018).
Romano, S. et al. Feature-tracking global longitudinal strain predicts death in a multicenter population of patients with ischemic and nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy incremental to ejection fraction and late gadolinium enhancement. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.10.024 (2018).
Schuster, A., Hor, K. N., Kowallick, J. T., Beerbaum, P. & Kutty, S. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial feature tracking: concepts and clinical applications. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 9, e004077. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.004077 (2016).
Ponikowski, P. et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 37, 2129–2200. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128 (2016).
Marcus, F. I. et al. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia: proposed modification of the Task Force Criteria. Eur Heart J. 31, 806–814. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq025 (2010).
Hudsmith, L., Petersen, S., Francis, J., Robson, M. & Neubauer, S. Normal human left and right ventricular and left atrial dimensions using steady state free precession magnetic resonance imaging. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 7, 775–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10976640500295516 (2005).
Stiermaier, T. et al. Frequency and prognostic impact of right ventricular involvement in acute myocardial infarction. Heart https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317184 (2020).
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.J.B., A.S., S.K. and J.T.K. designed the study protocol, performed data acquisition, performed statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. T.L. and M.B. performed data acquisition. C.S., J.L., B.P. and G.H. revised the manuscript and participated in the scientific discussion during the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
S.K. received an unrestricted research grant by Philips Healthcare and a research grant from Myocardial Solutions. C.S. is an employees of Philips Healthcare. A.S., S.B. and B.P. received support from the DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research). S.J.B., T.L., M.B., J.L., G.H. and T.J.K. declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Backhaus, S.J., Schuster, A., Lange, T. et al. Impact of fully automated assessment on interstudy reproducibility of biventricular volumes and function in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Sci Rep 11, 11648 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90702-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90702-9
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Cardiac function in a large animal model of myocardial infarction at 7 T: deep learning based automatic segmentation increases reproducibility
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Inter-study reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance-derived hemodynamic force assessments
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Pectus excavatum: the effect of tricuspid valve compression on cardiac function
Pediatric Radiology (2024)
-
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment
Clinical Research in Cardiology (2024)
-
Assessment of right ventricular size and function from cardiovascular magnetic resonance images using artificial intelligence
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (2022)