King's College London

Research portal

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

James P. Howard, Catherine C. Stowell, Graham D. Cole, Kajaluxy Ananthan, Camelia D. Demetrescu, Keith Pearce, Ronak Rajani, Jobanpreet Sehmi, Kavitha Vimalesvaran, G. Sunthar Kanaganayagam, Eleanor McPhail, Arjun K. Ghosh, John B. Chambers, Amar P. Singh, Massoud Zolgharni, Bushra Rana, Darrel P. Francis, Matthew J. Shun-Shin

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)405-415
Number of pages11
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Imaging
DOIs
Accepted/In press2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

King's Authors

Abstract

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.

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454