Cargando…

Coronary X-ray angiography segmentation using Artificial Intelligence: a multicentric validation study of a deep learning model

INTRODUCTION: We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model for automatic coronary angiography (CAG) segmentation, using deep learning. To validate this approach, the model was applied to a new dataset and results are reported. METHODS: Retrospective selection of patients undergoing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nobre Menezes, Miguel, Silva, João Lourenço, Silva, Beatriz, Rodrigues, Tiago, Guerreiro, Cláudio, Guedes, João Pedro, Santos, Manuel Oliveira, Oliveira, Arlindo L., Pinto, Fausto J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10250252/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37027105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10554-023-02839-5
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model for automatic coronary angiography (CAG) segmentation, using deep learning. To validate this approach, the model was applied to a new dataset and results are reported. METHODS: Retrospective selection of patients undergoing CAG and percutaneous coronary intervention or invasive physiology assessment over a one month period from four centers. A single frame was selected from images containing a lesion with a 50–99% stenosis (visual estimation). Automatic Quantitative Coronary Analysis (QCA) was performed with a validated software. Images were then segmented by the AI model. Lesion diameters, area overlap [based on true positive (TP) and true negative (TN) pixels] and a global segmentation score (GSS – 0 -100 points) - previously developed and published - were measured. RESULTS: 123 regions of interest from 117 images across 90 patients were included. There were no significant differences between lesion diameter, percentage diameter stenosis and distal border diameter between the original/segmented images. There was a statistically significant albeit minor difference [0,19 mm (0,09–0,28)] regarding proximal border diameter. Overlap accuracy ((TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN)), sensitivity (TP / (TP + FN)) and Dice Score (2TP / (2TP + FN + FP)) between original/segmented images was 99,9%, 95,1% and 94,8%, respectively. The GSS was 92 (87–96), similar to the previously obtained value in the training dataset. CONCLUSION: the AI model was capable of accurate CAG segmentation across multiple performance metrics, when applied to a multicentric validation dataset. This paves the way for future research on its clinical uses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10554-023-02839-5.