Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours.
Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9
复制
发表时间：
2015-07-28
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nagel E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Suinesiaputra A;Bluemke DA;Cowan BR;Friedrich MG;Kramer CM;Kwong R;Plein S;Schulz-Menger J;Westenberg JJ;Young AA;Nagel E
电影心血管磁共振（CMR）的LV质量和体积测量结果在单中心内具有较高的重现性。然而，由于不同的训练协议，轮廓可能在中心与中心之间变化的程度是未知的。我们的目标是量化许多中心之间的变异来源，并提供一个多中心共识的真实数据集，用于基准自动化处理工具，并促进CMR分析中新读者的培训。代表7个经验丰富的CMR核心实验室的7名独立专家阅片员根据其标准操作方案和SCMR指南分析了15个电影CMR数据集。根据统计优化方案为每张图像生成共识轮廓，该方案可最大限度地提高阅片者之间的轮廓放置一致性。阅片人一致性优于阅片人间一致性（舒张末期容积14.7 ml vs 15.2-28.4 ml;收缩末期容积13.2 ml vs 14.0-21.5 ml; LV质量17.5 g vs 20.2-34.5 g;射血分数4.2% vs 4.6- 7.5%）。与共识轮廓相比，阅片人非常一致（每位阅片人的病例间变异性较小），但由于每家临床试验机构的轮廓绘制方案存在差异，阅片人之间的偏倚存在差异。尽管在心尖和基底发现了较大的轮廓差异，但对体积的主要影响是由于LV所有区域轮廓位置的微小但一致的差异。建立了多中心共识数据集，用于基准测试和培训。在整理多中心结果时，需要在分析前就中心间轮廓绘制方案达成共识，或在分析后进行偏倚校正。
High reproducibility of LV mass and volume measurement from cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown within single centers. However, the extent to which contours may vary from center to center, due to different training protocols, is unknown. We aimed to quantify sources of variation between many centers, and provide a multi-center consensus ground truth dataset for benchmarking automated processing tools and facilitating training for new readers in CMR analysis. Seven independent expert readers, representing seven experienced CMR core laboratories, analyzed fifteen cine CMR data sets in accordance with their standard operating protocols and SCMR guidelines. Consensus contours were generated for each image according to a statistical optimization scheme that maximized contour placement agreement between readers. Reader-consensus agreement was better than inter-reader agreement (end-diastolic volume 14.7 ml vs 15.2–28.4 ml; end-systolic volume 13.2 ml vs 14.0–21.5 ml; LV mass 17.5 g vs 20.2–34.5 g; ejection fraction 4.2 % vs 4.6–7.5 %). Compared with consensus contours, readers were very consistent (small variability across cases within each reader), but bias varied between readers due to differences in contouring protocols at each center. Although larger contour differences were found at the apex and base, the main effect on volume was due to small but consistent differences in the position of the contours in all regions of the LV. A multi-center consensus dataset was established for the purposes of benchmarking and training. Achieving consensus on contour drawing protocol between centers before analysis, or bias correction after analysis, is required when collating multi-center results.
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Voth M;Attenberger UI;Luckscheiter A;Haneder S;Henzler T;Schoenberg SO;Schwenke C;Michaely HJ
通讯作者：
Michaely HJ