3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of In-Vivo and Ex-Vivo Ascending Aorta Elastic Properties through Automatic Deep Learning Segmentation of Cine-MRI and Biomechanical Testing

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Ascending aortic aneurysm is a pathology that is important to be supervised and treated. During the years the aorta dilates, it becomes stiff, and its elastic properties decrease. In some cases, the aortic wall can rupture leading to aortic dissection with a high mortality rate. The main reference standard to measure when the patient needs to undertake surgery is the aortic diameter. However, the aortic diameter was shown not to be sufficient to predict aortic dissection, implying other characteristics should be considered. Therefore, the main objective of this work is to assess in-vivo the elastic properties of four different quadrants of the ascending aorta and compare the results with equivalent properties obtained ex-vivo. The database consists of 73 cine-MRI sequences of thoracic aorta acquired in axial orientation at the level of the pulmonary trunk. All the patients have dilated aorta and surgery is required. The exams were acquired just prior to surgery, each consisting of 30 slices on average across the cardiac cycle. Multiple deep learning architectures have been explored with different hyperparameters and settings to automatically segment the contour of the aorta on each image and then automatically calculate the aortic compliance. A semantic segmentation U-Net network outperforms the rest explored networks with a Dice score of 98.09% (±0.96%) and a Hausdorff distance of 4.88 mm (±1.70 mm). Local aortic compliance and local aortic wall strain were calculated from the segmented surfaces for each quadrant and then compared with elastic properties obtained ex-vivo. Good agreement was observed between Young’s modulus and in-vivo strain. Our results suggest that the lateral and posterior quadrants are the stiffest. In contrast, the medial and anterior quadrants have the lowest aortic stiffness. The in-vivo stiffness tendency agrees with the values obtained ex-vivo. We can conclude that our automatic segmentation method is robust and compatible with clinical practice (thanks to a graphical user interface), while the in-vivo elastic properties are reliable and compatible with the ex-vivo ones.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Conference Proceedings: not found

          Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding Bland Altman analysis

              In a contemporary clinical laboratory it is very common to have to assess the agreement between two quantitative methods of measurement. The correct statistical approach to assess this degree of agreement is not obvious. Correlation and regression studies are frequently proposed. However, correlation studies the relationship between one variable and another, not the differences, and it is not recommended as a method for assessing the comparability between methods.
In 1983 Altman and Bland (B&A) proposed an alternative analysis, based on the quantification of the agreement between two quantitative measurements by studying the mean difference and constructing limits of agreement.
The B&A plot analysis is a simple way to evaluate a bias between the mean differences, and to estimate an agreement interval, within which 95% of the differences of the second method, compared to the first one, fall. Data can be analyzed both as unit differences plot and as percentage differences plot.
The B&A plot method only defines the intervals of agreements, it does not say whether those limits are acceptable or not. Acceptable limits must be defined a priori, based on clinical necessity, biological considerations or other goals.
The aim of this article is to provide guidance on the use and interpretation of Bland Altman analysis in method comparison studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                JCMOHK
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                JCM
                MDPI AG
                2077-0383
                January 2023
                January 04 2023
                : 12
                : 2
                : 402
                Article
                10.3390/jcm12020402
                36675331
                1ef73365-fe8d-433c-9352-91dcb1aaaefb
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article