70 Deep learning to diagnose cardiac amyloidosis from cardiac magnetic resonance findings. (17th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Aimo, Alberto; Martini, Nicola; Barison, Andrea; Latta, Daniele Della; Vergaro, Giuseppe; Aquaro, Giovanni Donato; Ripoli, Andrea; Emdin, Michele; Chiappino, Dante
• Is Part Of: European heart journal supplements. Volume 22(2020)Supplement N
• Page Start: N116
• Page End: N130
• Publication Date: 2020-12-17
• Subjects: Cardiology -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Europe -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/suaa205
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1520-765X

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is part of the diagnostic work-up for cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Deep learning (DL) is an application of artificial intelligence that may allow to automatically analyze CMR findings and establish the likelihood of CA. Methods and results: 1.5 T CMR was performed in 187 subjects with suspected CA (n = 92, 49% with unexplained left ventricular—LV—hypertrophy; n = 95, 51% with blood dyscrasia and suspected light-chain amyloidosis). Patients were randomly assigned to the training (n = 121, 65%), validation (n = 28, 15%), and testing subgroups (n = 38, 20%). Short axis (SA), 2-chamber (2 C), 4-chamber (4 C) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images were evaluated by 3 networks (DL algorithms). The tags "amyloidosis present" or "absent" were attributed when the average probability of CA from the 3 networks was ≥50% or < 50%, respectively. The DL strategy was compared to a machine learning (ML) algorithm considering all manually extracted features (LV volumes, mass and function, LGE pattern, early blood-pool darkening, pericardial and pleural effusion, etc.), to reproduce exam reading by an experienced operator. The DL strategy displayed good diagnostic accuracy (84%), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96. The precision (positive predictive value), recall score (sensitivity), and F1 score (a measure of test accuracy) were 78%, 94%, and 86% respectively. A ML algorithm considering all CMR features had a similar diagnostic yield to DL strategy (AUC 0.93 vs. 0.96; p = 0.45). Conclusion: A DL approach evaluating LGE acquisitions displayed a similar diagnostic performance for CA to a ML-based approach, which simulates CMR reading by experienced operators.