https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-4805
Figures
Abstract
Scar quantification on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images is important in risk stratifying patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) due to the importance of scar burden in predicting clinical outcomes. We aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model that contours left ventricular (LV) endo- and epicardial borders and quantifies CMR LGE images from HCM patients.We retrospectively studied 2557 unprocessed images from 307 HCM patients followed at the University Health Network (Canada) and Tufts Medical Center (USA). LGE images were manually segmented by two experts using two different software packages. Using 6SD LGE intensity cutoff as the gold standard, a 2-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained on 80% and tested on the remaining 20% of the data. Model performance was evaluated using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Bland-Altman, and Pearson’s correlation. The 6SD model DSC scores were good to excellent at 0.91 ± 0.04, 0.83 ± 0.03, and 0.64 ± 0.09 for the LV endocardium, epicardium, and scar segmentation, respectively. The bias and limits of agreement for the percentage of LGE to LV mass were low (-0.53 ± 2.71%), and correlation high (r = 0.92). This fully automated interpretable ML algorithm allows rapid and accurate scar quantification from CMR LGE images. This program does not require manual image pre-processing, and was trained with multiple experts and software, increasing its generalizability.
Author summary
Accurate scar quantification of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images is important in managing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients. We developed a 2D convolutional neural network to quantify CMR LGE in HCM patients that is computationally interpretable and trained using multicenter data analyzed by 2 expert readers using 2 different analysis packages. Our model demonstrated low bias and limits of agreement and high correlation with expert analysis. Benchmarking comparison was performed between our algorithm and standard U-Net model with and without cropped raw images. Our method showed superior performance and has high potential for clinical adaptability.
Citation: Navidi Z, Sun J, Chan RH, Hanneman K, Al-Arnawoot A, Munim A, et al. (2023) Interpretable machine learning for automated left ventricular scar quantification in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients. PLOS Digit Health 2(1): e0000159. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000159
Editor: Rutwik Shah, UCSF: University of California San Francisco, UNITED STATES
Received: September 18, 2022; Accepted: November 9, 2022; Published: January 4, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Navidi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly because of HIPAA requirements. For data requests, please contact the corresponding author at wendy.tsang@uhn.ca. All code is available in a public link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1197aHAFmLWqknuvrKAm51i7fH4q8c7Bo and will be shared on GitHub after publication.
Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Peter Munk Cardiology Center Innovation Fund and the MSH-UHN AMO Innovation Fund. BW is partially supported by the CIFAR AI Chair Program. WT is supported by a Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada National New Investigator Award. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Introduction
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common inheritable cardiomyopathy with a reported prevalence as high as 1 in 200 [1]. Patients with HCM can develop myocardial fibrosis, which is associated with heart failure and sudden cardiac death [2–5]. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) techniques on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging allow for non-invasive detection and quantification of fibrosis in patients with HCM. Due to its prognostic value, current guidelines for the management of HCM patients recommends assessment of LGE by CMR as an important component for risk stratification [6–8]. However, in current practice, LGE quantification can be subjective, time-consuming, and requires training to delineate both the myocardial borders and the hyper-enhanced regions on the LGE images [9–12]. These issues are even more pronounced in HCM patients where scar is most often patchy and multi-focal [12].
Recently, machine learning (ML) and specifically deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) have been used to automate CMR LGE image segmentation in HCM patients [13–18]. However, many of these ML algorithms require image pre-processing or relied on a single expert reader as their reference standard, potentially limiting their generalizability and adoptability. The Shape Attentive U-Net (SAUNet) model, a previously developed algorithm from our group, focuses on model interpretability and robustness, and has shown promising performance on medical image segmentation [19]. We aimed to use SAUNet to develop a 2-dimensional (2D) computationally interpretable CNN model to efficiently and accurately segment left ventricular (LV) endo- and epicardial borders and quantify scar on LGE CMR images in HCM patients with minimal pre-processing and using a single NVIDIA Tesla P100 graphics card.
Results
Baseline patient demographics are presented in Table 1. The median age of patients was 52 years (interquartile range, IQR, 39–61 years) and the majority (70%) were male. The short axis LGE images consisted of 8 ± 2 images per patient (interquartile range, IQR, 7–9 images). LGE images from 307 HCM patients were divided into exclusive training or testing subsets. The training set included 247 patients (2056 images) with 200 patients having LGE scar (927 images). The testing set consisted of 60 patients (501 images) with 53 patients having LGE scar (253 images). See the S1 Table for more detailed information.
Model development
Model development is described in Fig 1. The average analysis time for one image using our algorithm was less than 70 milliseconds using a single NVIDIA Tesla P100 GPU. Figs 2 and 3 provide examples of the expert-based analysis and contours predicted by the SAUNet algorithm in patients with and without scar. The heatmaps obtained from different layers of the model were obtained to visualize the focus of the model at different steps. These intermediate-level outputs for each layer of the SAUNet model aided in identifying which layers required modification to improve the final segmentation performance for faulty predictions. The spatial attention maps of the final Dual Attention Block (DA-Block) are provided in Figs 2 and 3 for the corresponding samples to highlight regions of interest by the model during intermediate stages of the algorithm computation [19].
Diagram of the 2D CNN model (SAUNet) used in this study with sample input and output (BCE = Binary Cross Entropy, CE = Cross Entropy, Conv = Convolutional Block, DA-Block = Dual Attention Block, Res. Block = Residual Block).
Examples of patients with no scar. The leftmost column is the original MRI image, the second column is the expert-based label or ground truth, and the third column is the model prediction. The fourth and fifth columns are the spatial attention heatmaps at the 1/2 and 1/4 resolutions, respectively.
Examples of patients with mild (8% LGE) (a) and large (51% LGE) scar burden (b). The left most column is the expert-based label or ground truth, and the second column is the model prediction. The third and fourth columns are the spatial attention heatmaps at the 1/2 and 1/4 resolutions, respectively. Note, not all slices from each patient are presented.
Model LV Segmentation and Scar Quantification
4SD SAUNet model.
LV segmentation by the developed model demonstrated excellent similarity to manual segmentation with a DSC score of 0.92 ± 0.04 for the LV endocardium and 0.83 ± 0.03 for the LV epicardium. For LV LGE scar quantification, the DSC score was good at 0.60 ± 0.08. There was no significant difference between the average LGE scar mass quantified by the 4SD model compared to manual expert analysis (3.77 ± 7.11 g model versus 4.56 ± 7.23 g expert, p = 0.55, Table 2). The per patient correlation between SAUNet 4SD model LGE scar mass and expert manually quantified LGE scar mass was high (r-value 0.92, Fig 4A). Bland-Altman analysis for scar mass demonstrated that the 4SD model had a low bias of -0.79 g with limits of agreement of -6.26 g to 4.68 g (Fig 4B).
Correlation (a) and Bland-Altman analysis (b) between the expert-based manual analysis and the model prediction for CMR LGE scar mass. Correlation (c) and Bland-Altman analysis (d) between the expert-based manual analysis and model prediction for percentage of LGE volume.
The percentage LGE quantified by the SAUNet 4SD model was 2.55 ± 4.94% compared to 3.47 ± 5.62% obtained by manual expert-analysis, which was not significantly different (p = 0.34). Correlation between SAUNet 4SD model and manually quantified percentage LGE scar was high (r-value 0.90, Fig 4C). For %LGE, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the 4SD model slightly underestimated LGE with a bias of -0.93% and limits of agreement of -5.64% to 3.78% (Fig 4D). There was no significant difference between sites in either scar quantification or the percentage of LGE quantified.
6SD SAUNet model.
LV segmentation by the SAUNet 6SD model demonstrated excellent similarity to manual segmentation with a DSC score of 0.91 ± 0.04 for the LV endocardium and 0.83 ± 0.03 for the LV epicardium. For LV LGE scar quantification, the DSC score was good at 0.64 ± 0.09. There was no significant difference between the average LGE scar mass quantified by the 6SD model compared to manual expert analysis (2.21 ± 4.38 g model versus 2.68 ± 4.77 g, p = 0.50, Table 2). The per patient correlation between the 6SD model LGE scar mass and expert manually quantified LGE scar mass was high with an r-value of 0.91 (Fig 5A). Bland-Altman analysis for scar mass demonstrated that the 6SD model had a low bias of -0.56 g with limits of agreement of -4.44 g to 3.32 g (Fig 5B).
Correlation (a) and Bland-Altman analysis (b) between the expert-based manual analysis and the model prediction for CMR LGE scar mass. Correlation (c) and Bland-Altman analysis (d) between the expert-based manual analysis and model prediction for percentage of LGE volume.
The percentage LGE quantified by the SAUNet 6SD model was 1.28 ± 2.76% compared to 1.80 ± 3.38% obtained by manual expert-analysis, which was not significantly different (p = 0.35). Correlation between the 6SD model and manually quantified percentage LGE scar was high with an r-value of 0.92 (Fig 5C). Bland-Altman analysis for LGE% demonstrated that the 6SD model had a low bias of -0.53 g with limits of agreement of -3.23 g to 2.18 g (Fig 5D).
U-Net model comparison.
Tables 3–4 provides the comparisons for LV segmentation and scar detection between the 4SD and 6SD SAUNet models and the U-Net models. While the DSC scores for SAUNet and U-Net endo and epicardium segmentation were close, the DSC scores for scar prediction were 5–7% higher for 4SD and 6SD SAUNet models compared to the implemented U-Net models. Cropping the images to isolate the LV region improved the absolute DSC scores for both the SAUNet and U-Net models by 2–8% compared to their respective results without image cropping. However, the results of the SAUNet program remained superior to U-Net (Table 3).
Bland Altman analysis, t-test, predicted mean mass, and expert-read mean mass and LGE% comparing SAUNet against U-Net for the 4SD and 6SD models are provided in Table 4 (see S1 Fig and S2 Fig for more analyses).
Sex comparison.
The mass and LGE% statistics of ground truth from different sex groups are provided in S2 Table, using the 6SD SAUNet model. By Welch’s t-test, there are no differences between the predicted and ground truth means for between sexes.
Discussion
In this study, we have used multicenter CMR data to successfully develop and validate a fully automated deep learning algorithm that contours the LV endo- and epicardial borders and quantifies LGE in patients with HCM. Based on the experiments we performed, our pipeline provides more accurate and robust scar quantification as it was trained with data from different sites, vendors, readers, and analysis packages. It also has higher clinical utility as it does not require manual image pre-processing and can rapidly analyze standard CMR LGE images using a single graphics card. Finally, it is based on SAUNet architecture, allowing strong computational interpretability by providing visualization attention maps during the intermediate stages of the segmentation.
Compared to previous studies specifically investigating HCM patients, the CMR images used in our study were collated from multiple vendors, and two distinct sets of these images were analyzed by two different readers using different software packages. The incorporation of data from different sites, vendors, readers, and analysis packages enabled us to develop a more robust model. Studies have demonstrated significant inter-reader variability in CMR LGE image analysis, which is exacerbated by the patchy multifocal CMR LGE appearance in HCM patients [9–12]. As such, incorporating more than one reader reduces the risk of bias that may develop in a deep learning model trained using contours from one clinician. Given the aforementioned advantages, the dataset used to train and test the algorithm allowed us to develop a model with greater potential for wider clinical use.
Moreover, we trained and validated our model to function efficiently on a single NVIDIA GPU to analyze uncropped images. Our algorithm can rapidly process one image in less than 0.07 seconds, which is comparable to previous programs. Using our program, an average CMR study consisting of approximately 8 LGE images would require less than 0.56 seconds to be analyzed. This is considerably shorter than the time currently required for experts to manually segment the LV and quantify the scar burden from CMR LGE images [20]. This offers time-savings to clinicians and will reduce the amount of training required to perform CMR LGE scar analysis. It will also increase the number of patients receiving quantitative scar burden measurement over a qualitative assessment.
Our pipeline does not require the extra step of manually cropping the images such that all the structures around the LV are removed. Most of the previously developed programs were trained and tested using these LV focused CMR LGE images, because it reduces computational requirements as the tasks (i.e., identify the LV and then segment the LV) required by the algorithm are reduced. The ability to analyze a more complete image permits this program to be more easily integrated into an automated clinical workflow.
To demonstrate the improvements gained by our SAUNet-based algorithm, we compared our results against a U-Net model trained and tested on the same samples with the same gold standard definition. Our benchmarking also included assessing the impact of image cropping to isolate the LV. Overall, CMR LGE quantification is a more complicated task as demonstrated by the lower DSC scores compared to LV segmentation as seen in this analysis and in prior publications. However, our SAUNet model performed better at scar segmentation compared to the standard U-Net, and this improvement persisted with cropped images. Overall, SAUNet results in an algorithm that outperforms standard U-Net architecture [16].
The use of SAUNet also improves both computational interpretability and performance of final prediction. SAUNet is a 2D architecture that we developed that uses shape-dependent information in addition to texture information to improve a CNN model’s robustness [19]. We have taken this architecture and adapted it to HCM LV segmentation and LGE quantification. Previously developed HCM algorithms used off-the-shelf U-Net models, which lack interpretability. In comparison, SAUNet allows for multi-level computational interpretability and removes the need for additional post-hoc computations or gradient-based saliency methods for sensitivity analysis [19,21]. The intrinsic attention maps within the SAUNet model are a strong alternative to saliency methods with some improved computational advantages [19]. Namely, attention maps at varying resolutions and layers of the model are all computed during the forward-pass of an image, reducing the need for multiple iterations of additional post-hoc computation to compute the saliency map of different points within the model. We suggest this computational interpretability is beneficial as having a seamless method to visualize comprehensible intermediate stages of the model is useful for debugging the pipeline, especially in the case of using larger datasets with greater variance (i.e., from different readers and centres). Existing works for automated scar quantification in HCM patients proposed programs with no framework or guidelines for interpretability analysis [13–16]. By verifying that an algorithm is not perpetuating biases, a valuable tool can be created to help solve the challenges numerous clinicians face in medical image analysis.
Limitations
One limitation to this study is the slight pixel intensity shifts seen within a patient’s CMR LGE images. Often expert readers will define a region of interest of normal myocardium on a limited number of slices (i.e., not on every LGE image). Thus, subtle intensity shifts to the overall pixel values on slices where the normal region was not defined could lead to over- or underestimation of scarring in the ground truth mask. While the extracted pixels’ statistics generally performed well, providing a normal myocardial region contour for every LGE slice would enhance the accuracy of individual slices’ labelling. Validation with more interpreters or with pathologic confirmation would be important in removing potential bias and human error in the ground truth contouring. Finally, external validation of this program would be valuable to assess wider generalizability.
Conclusions
Using novel machine learning methods, we have successfully developed an automatic deep learning pipeline that rapidly provides LV endo- and epicardial segmentation and LV scar quantification on CMR images. Our program was developed with multiple experts and software packages. It also does not require heavy image pre-processing and has greater interpretability, potentially allowing it to be integrated into routine clinical practice.
Materials and methods
Study patients
The study design is summarized in Fig 6. We retrospectively studied 2557 CMR LGE images from 307 HCM patients imaged at the University Health Network (Toronto, Canada) and Tufts Medical Center (Boston, USA) between November 2001 and September 2015.
The diagnosis of HCM was made clinically as per societal guidelines [7,8,22]. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained from the patient’s electronic medical record. Echocardiograms were reviewed for information regarding the presence of LV outflow tract obstruction. This study received the proper ethical oversight and was approved by the Research Ethics boards of the University Health Network (Toronto, Canada) and Tufts Medical Center (Boston, USA).
CMR imaging
CMR imaging was performed using 1.5T or 3T scanners (Achieva, Philips, the Netherlands; or Avanto/Skyra_fit/Signa Excite/Verio, Siemens, Germany) using steady-state, free-precession breath-hold cines in sequential short-axis slices from the atrioventricular ring to the apex (6–8 mm slices with 0–2 mm inter-slice gap). LGE images were acquired 10 to 20 minutes after intravenous administration of 0.15–0.2 mmol/kg gadolinium-DTPA with breath-hold 2D phase-sensitive inversion-recovery sequences in identical planes as in the cine images. Inversion time was optimized to null normal myocardial signal. For phase-sensitive sequences, uncorrected magnitude images were used.
CMR image analysis
LV endo- and epicardial contouring and LGE scar quantification were performed using commercially available software packages (QMASS DSI version 7.4, Medis Medical Imaging, Leiden, Netherlands; CVi42 5.11.1, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Calgary, Canada) (S3 Table). LV endocardial and epicardial borders were manually contoured on the LGE images to define the myocardium, taking care to exclude papillary muscles and the trabecular blood pool. LGE quantification was performed by 2 expert readers (R.H.C., A.A) [4,23,24]. Briefly, LV myocardial areas with pixel intensity values 4 standard deviations (SD) greater than the mean of a normal myocardial region that was manually defined by experts, were considered scar, and labelled as the 4SD LGE ground truth. A 6SD ground truth was also generated using a 6SD cut-off. The LGE area of each slice was then summed across each patient’s MRI images to generate the total LGE mass. Inter- and intra-observer agreement using this method has previously been published [4].
For ML, each patient’s CMR study contained manually traced contours corresponding to the LV endo- and epicardium that was used for LV segmentation, and a contour identifying a region of normal myocardium on the LGE images. The mean and standard deviations of the normal myocardial region were used to calculate and label the scarred region for that patient’s LGE images. Each 2D image was converted to a tensor and then normalized across the slice before it was fed into the model during training and validation. Due to the downsizing and upsizing nature of the architecture of the deep model used in this study, each image was reshaped to the size of 256 by 256 pixels prior to analysis. To avoid training bias, the datasets for each site were randomly split into training and testing data sets in a 4:1 ratio, ensuring that the 80% of cases with LGE present were included in the training set and the remaining 20% were used for validation. A model was trained using the 4SD ground truth and separately the 6SD ground truth label.
Convolutional neural network
An interpretable version of the 2D U-Net deep neural network (DNN) model called Shape Attentive U-Net (SAUNet) was used in this study. SAUNet architecture is composed of two main streams, including the shape stream that processes boundary information and the texture stream. The shape stream is composed of gated convolutional layers and residual layers. The gated convolutional layers are used to fuse texture and shape information, while the residual layers are used to fine-tune the shape features [19].
Each image sample was processed as a (3, 256, 256) tensor, which was fed into the network. The SAUNet model deploys an encoder-decoder based architecture to learn the features of LV and scar segmentation, and outputs a (4, 256, 256) tensor. Each of the four channels in the output tensor corresponds to one of the 4 segmentation classes: background, LV epicardium, LV endocardium, and scar. We apply a Softmax function across the channel dimension such that each tensor value in a given channel corresponds to the probability that corresponding pixel is labelled its respective channel’s class. Thus, our model’s final prediction is computed as the argmax of the output tensor after the SoftMax function. In other words, each pixel is labelled as the class that has the highest probability across the channels for the respective pixel.
We deployed transfer learning and data augmentation techniques to train a robust and generalizable model and speed up the learning process. We started with a SAUNet model, whose initial parameters were determined from training to segment the left and right ventricular cavities and left myocardium on CMR data on the AC17 dataset [19,25]. Multiple real-time augmentation methods were deployed during the training step to prevent overfitting and increase the generalizability of the model. By applying various data augmentation techniques, multiple potential variations of the provided images were seen by the model, helping mitigate the data hunger of deep models [26,27]. Random cropping, flipping, rotating, and random elastic deformation filtration were applied on the images to allow the deep model to identify various shapes of images [28].
Mini-batch gradient descent was deployed during training, which provided fast training convergence while limiting memory usage. After performing hyperparameter search, we used a batch size of 4 for all model training. SAUNet includes a combination of three loss functions as the total loss composed of the segmentation loss and the shape stream boundary loss. SAUNet uses a Cross-Entropy loss as a commonly used loss function for image segmentation tasks (LCE), Dice loss which measures the overlap and similarity between two sets for each class (LDice), and an extra loss called Edge loss which denotes the binary cross entropy loss of the predicted shape boundaries (LEdge). The total loss, LTotal, is defined as,
The stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm was deployed for training optimization with a momentum of 0.9 and a learning rate value initialized to 0.0005. For regularization, a weight decay of 1e-4 was used, and the best model parameters were selected based on the scarring segmentation Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) score between 180 epochs of training.
Image processing and performance evaluation were performed using Python (version 3.6; Python Software Foundation) in the PyTorch framework. All analysis was performed using a single NVIDIA Tesla P100 graphics card. Model implementation and their parameters are available online on our GitHub page.
Scar quantification
On the CMR LGE images, we computed the scar and no-scar myocardial mass (in grams) by multiplying the voxel volume by the number of pixels labelled scar or no-scar, respectively. Summation of segmented no-scar and scarred myocardial mass was used to calculate the total LV mass. The ratio of scar mass to total LV myocardium mass (%LGE) was computed for automatic and manual segmentations. Scar regions bordering the endocardium and epicardium contours as well as regions with an area of only 1-pixel were considered as noise and were removed from the ground truth during training and assessment [16].
Model interpretability
Interpretability is a limitation of most neural networks, such as U-Net due to the large number of convolutional layers used. This effectively renders the neural network a black box, making it difficult to determine the cause of misclassification or inaccurate segmentation. SAUNet addresses the interpretability and robustness constraints by including a secondary shape stream in its architecture in parallel to the regular stream that mainly captures images’ texture information. SAUNet includes modules in its architecture that take in intermediate feature maps at multiple stages of the network. These attention maps can be extracted to produce a visual heatmap that can be used for interpretability. More specifically, the heatmap visualization highlights the regions of the input image that have a more substantial impact on the final segmentation and can be used to detect the layers of origin where the inaccuracy of prediction starts for samples with faulty predictions. This opportunity provides the model developers with a better understanding of where to focus on for improving the model.
Comparison to other models
U-Net architecture variations have been used in other studies to segment CMR LGE images in HCM patients. We analyzed our test dataset using the standard U-Net architecture and compared the results to our model’s performance for CMR LGE quantification [13–17]. The 4SD and 6SD U-Net models were implemented in the PyTorch framework and trained with the same hyperparameters and data as the SAUNet models.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess agreement between automatic and manual scar volumes and the %LGE. Overlap between the automatically segmented and the manually segmented areas in samples was measured by using the DSC for both the LV scar and the myocardium. DSC calculates the area of overlap between ground truth and the prediction divided by the total number of pixels in the images:
where GT is the ground truth and P is the model prediction pixels [19]. DSC was only calculated from samples with scar present on either the ground truth or the model prediction as DSC is not defined when there is no scar. DSC scores were classified as follows: less than 0.25, poor; 0.25–0.49, moderate; 0.5–0.74, good; and 0.75 or greater, excellent. We used a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test to compare DSC values, the Welch t-test to compare regression slopes, and the Fisher z test to compare correlation coefficients. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using R 4.0.2 [29–31].
The following comparisons between the ground truth and the model prediction for LV segmentations, LGE mass and LGE% were performed:
- The SAUNet 4SD model versus the SAUNet 6SD model,
- Our SAUNet model versus the standard U-Net model using either a 4SD or 6SD cutoff.
Many previous studies on HCM images required image pre-processing with manually cropping to isolate the LV prior to analysis [13]. Thus, we also performed the above comparisons on pre-processed images that were cropped around the LV region to observe the effect of cropping on segmentation. Each 2D image slice was cropped around the epicardium border using the positional information provided in the ground truth epicardium mask. Then, each image was zoomed to a dimension of 160x160 px2 consistent with previous works [17]. Lastly, differences in model performance on our testing set partitioned by sex were examined for the SAUNet 6SD model.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Correlation and Bland-Altman analysis for U-Net 4SD model.
Correlation (a) and Bland-Altman analysis (b) between the expert-based manual analysis and the model prediction for CMR LGE scar mass. Correlation (c) and Bland-Altman analysis (d) between the expert-based manual analysis and model prediction for percentage of LGE volume.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000159.s001
(TIFF)
S2 Fig. Correlation and Bland-Altman analysis for U-Net 6SD model.
Correlation (a) and Bland-Altman analysis (b) between the expert-based manual analysis and the model prediction for CMR LGE scar mass. Correlation (c) and Bland-Altman analysis (d) between the expert-based manual analysis and model prediction for percentage of LGE volume.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000159.s002
(TIFF)
S1 Table. Size of training and testing samples grouped by their site and scarring label.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000159.s003
(XLSX)
S2 Table. Bland Altman analysis, t-test, and predicted against expert-read mean mass and LGE% for the 6SD SAUNet on the testing set split by sex.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000159.s004
(XLSX)
S3 Table. Number of samples grouped by site and software used by experts.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000159.s005
(XLSX)
References
- 1. Semsarian C, Ingles J, Maron MS, Maron BJ. New perspectives on the prevalence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1249–54. pmid:25814232
- 2. Semsarian C, Ingles J, Wilde AAM. Sudden cardiac death in the young: the molecular autopsy and a practical approach to surviving relatives. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1290–6. pmid:25765769
- 3. Maron BJ, Roberts WC, McAllister HA, Rosing DR, Epstein SE. Sudden death in young athletes. Circulation. 1980;62:218–29. pmid:6446987
- 4. Chan RH, Maron BJ, Olivotto I, Pencina MJ, Assenza GE, Haas T, et al. Prognostic value of quantitative contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the evaluation of sudden death risk in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2014;130:484–95. pmid:25092278
- 5. O’Hanlon R, Grasso A, Roughton M, Moon JC, Clark S, Wage R, et al. Prognostic significance of myocardial fibrosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:867–74. pmid:20688032
- 6. Moon JCC, Reed E, Sheppard MN, Elkington AG, Ho SY, Burke M, et al. The histologic basis of late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:2260–4. pmid:15193690
- 7. Ommen SR, Mital S, Burke MA, Day SM, Deswal A, Elliott P, et al. 2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2020;142:e558–631. pmid:33215931
- 8. Authors/Task Force members, Elliott PM, Anastasakis A, Borger MA, Borggrefe M, Cecchi F, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2733–79. pmid:25173338
- 9. Flett AS, Hasleton J, Cook C, Hausenloy D, Quarta G, Ariti C, et al. Evaluation of techniques for the quantification of myocardial scar of differing etiology using cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:150–6. pmid:21329899
- 10. Stirrat J, Joncas SX, Salerno M, Drangova M, White J. Influence of phase correction of late gadolinium enhancement images on scar signal quantification in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2015;17:66. pmid:26248535
- 11. McAlindon E, Pufulete M, Lawton C, Angelini GD, Bucciarelli-Ducci C. Quantification of infarct size and myocardium at risk: evaluation of different techniques and its implications. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:738–46. pmid:25736308
- 12. Engblom H, Tufvesson J, Jablonowski R, Carlsson M, Aletras AH, Hoffmann P, et al. A new automatic algorithm for quantification of myocardial infarction imaged by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance: experimental validation and comparison to expert delineations in multi-center, multi-vendor patient data. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:27. pmid:27145749
- 13. Zabihollahy F, Rajan S, Ukwatta E. Machine Learning-Based Segmentation of Left Ventricular Myocardial Fibrosis from Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020;22:65. pmid:32562100
- 14. Fahmy AS, Rowin EJ, Arafati A, Al-Otaibi T, Maron MS, Nezafat R. Radiomics and deep learning for myocardial scar screening in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2022;24:40. pmid:35761339
- 15. Fahmy AS, Rausch J, Neisius U, Chan RH, Maron MS, Appelbaum E, et al. Automated Cardiac MR Scar Quantification in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:1917–8. pmid:30121270
- 16. Fahmy AS, Neisius U, Chan RH, Rowin EJ, Manning WJ, Maron MS, et al. Three-dimensional Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Myocardial Scar Quantification in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Multicenter Multivendor Study. Radiology. 2020;294:52–60. pmid:31714190
- 17. Fahmy AS, Rowin EJ, Chan RH, Manning WJ, Maron MS, Nezafat R. Improved Quantification of Myocardium Scar in Late Gadolinium Enhancement Images: Deep Learning Based Image Fusion Approach. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2021;54:303–12. pmid:33599043
- 18. Popescu DM, Abramson HG, Yu R, Lai C, Shade JK, Wu KC, et al. Anatomically informed deep learning on contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for scar segmentation and clinical feature extraction. Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2022;3:2–13. pmid:35265930
- 19. Sun J, Darbehani F, Zaidi M, Wang B. SAUNet: Shape Attentive U-Net for Interpretable Medical Image Segmentation [Internet]. arXiv; 2020 [cited 2022 Aug 25]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07645
- 20. Lu Y, Yang Y, Connelly KA, Wright GA, Radau PE. Automated quantification of myocardial infarction using graph cuts on contrast delayed enhanced magnetic resonance images. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2012;2:81–6. pmid:23256065
- 21. Reyes M, Meier R, Pereira S, Silva CA, Dahlweid F-M, von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al. On the Interpretability of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Challenges and Opportunities. Radiol Artif Intell. 2020;2:e190043. pmid:32510054
- 22. Gersh BJ, Maron BJ, Bonow RO, Dearani JA, Fifer MA, Link MS, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e212–260. pmid:22075469
- 23. Harrigan CJ, Peters DC, Gibson CM, Maron BJ, Manning WJ, Maron MS, et al. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: quantification of late gadolinium enhancement with contrast-enhanced cardiovascular MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;258:128–33. pmid:21045187
- 24. Moravsky G, Ofek E, Rakowski H, Butany J, Williams L, Ralph-Edwards A, et al. Myocardial fibrosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: accurate reflection of histopathological findings by CMR. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:587–96. pmid:23582356
- 25. Bernard O, Lalande A, Zotti C, Cervenansky F, Yang X, Heng P-A, et al. Deep Learning Techniques for Automatic MRI Cardiac Multi-Structures Segmentation and Diagnosis: Is the Problem Solved? IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018;37:2514–25. pmid:29994302
- 26. Shin H-C, Roth HR, Gao M, Lu L, Xu Z, Nogues I, et al. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35:1285–98. pmid:26886976
- 27. Tajbakhsh N, Shin JY, Gurudu SR, Hurst RT, Kendall CB, Gotway MB, et al. Convolutional Neural Networks for Medical Image Analysis: Full Training or Fine Tuning? IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35:1299–312. pmid:26978662
- 28.
Castro E, Cardoso JS, Pereira JC. Elastic deformations for data augmentation in breast cancer mass detection. 2018 IEEE EMBS Int Conf Biomed Health Inform BHI [Internet]. Las Vegas, NV, USA: IEEE; 2018 [cited 2022 Aug 25]. p. 230–4. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8333411/
- 29.
Wickham H. ggplot2 [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2009 [cited 2022 Aug 28]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3
- 30.
BlandAltmanLeh: Plots (Slightly Extended) Bland-Altman Plots version 0.3.1 from CRAN [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 25]. Available from: https://rdrr.io/cran/BlandAltmanLeh/
- 31. Arnholt AT, Evans B. BSDA: Basic Statistics and Data Analysis [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 28]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BSDA