PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sahashi, Yuki
AU  - Vukadinovic, Milos
AU  - Duffy, Grant
AU  - Li, Debiao
AU  - Cheng, Susan
AU  - Berman, Daniel S.
AU  - Ouyang, David
AU  - Kwan, Alan C.
TI  - Using Deep learning to Predict Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Findings from Echocardiography Videos
AID  - 10.1101/2024.04.16.24305936
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.04.16.24305936
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/22/2024.04.16.24305936.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/22/2024.04.16.24305936.full
AB  - Background Echocardiography is the most common modality for assessing cardiac structure and function. While cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is less accessible, CMR can provide unique tissue characterization including late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), T1 and T2 mapping, and extracellular volume (ECV) which are associated with tissue fibrosis, infiltration, and inflammation. While deep learning has been shown to uncover findings not recognized by clinicians, it is unknown whether CMR-based tissue characteristics can be derived from echocardiography videos using deep learning. We hypothesized that deep learning applied to echocardiography could predict CMR-based measurements.Methods In a retrospective single-center study, adult patients with CMRs and echocardiography studies within 30 days were included. A video-based convolutional neural network was trained on echocardiography videos to predict CMR-derived labels including wall motion abnormality (WMA) presence, LGE presence, and abnormal T1, T2 or ECV across echocardiography views. The model performance was evaluated in a held-out test dataset not used for training.Results The study population included 1,453 adult patients (mean age 56±18 years, 42% female) with 2,556 paired echocardiography studies occurring on average 2 days after CMR (interquartile range 2 days prior to 6 days after). The model had high predictive capability for presence of WMA (AUC 0.873 [95%CI 0.816-0.922]), however, the model was unable to reliably detect the presence of LGE (AUC 0.699 [0.613-0.780]), native T1 (AUC 0.614 [0.500-0.715]), T2 0.553 [0.420-0.692], or ECV 0.564 [0.455-0.691]).Conclusions Deep learning applied to echocardiography accurately identified CMR-based WMA, but was unable to predict tissue characteristics, suggesting that signal for these tissue characteristics may not be present within ultrasound videos, and that the use of CMR for tissue characterization remains essential within cardiology.Clinical Perspective Tissue characterization of the heart muscle is useful for clinical diagnosis and prognosis by identifying myocardial fibrosis, inflammation, and infiltration, and can be measured using cardiac MRI. While echocardiography is highly accessible and provides excellent functional information, its ability to provide tissue characterization information is limited at this time. Our study using a deep learning approach to predict cardiac MRI-based tissue characteristics from echocardiography showed limited ability to do so, suggesting that alternative approaches, including non-deep learning methods should be considered in future research.Graphical AbstractOverview of the study pipeline and results. A large echocardiography dataset involving 2,566 studies from 1,453 patients paired with CMR and echocardiography within 30 days from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was identified. A convolutional neural network with residual connections and spatiotemporal convolutions was trained to predict each CMR finding and detect abnormal findings from echocardiography. Results showed strong prediction of functional abnormalities, but poor prediction of CMR-specific tissue characterization.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementGrant funding support includes: ACK: AHA 23CDA1053659, NIH UL1TR001881, 75N92020D00021 DO: NHLBI R00HL157421, 75N92020D00021 YS: Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science, Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (JSPS-KAKENHI) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and informed consent was waived due to the retrospective analysis.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData available on reasonable requestAHAAmerican Heart AssociationAUROCArea under receiver operating characteristicA4CApical 4 chamberA2CApical 2 chamberCMRCardiac magnetic resonanceECVExtracellular volumeLVEFLeft ventricular ejection fractionLGElate gadolinium enhancementPLAXParasternal long axisMOLLImodified inversion look-locker