{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: 2-Dimensional Echocardiographic Global Longitudinal Strain With Artificial Intelligence Using Open Data From a UK-Wide Collaborative.
{Author}: Stowell CC;Howard JP;Ng T;Cole GD;Bhattacharyya S;Sehmi J;Alzetani M;Demetrescu CD;Hartley A;Singh A;Ghosh A;Vimalesvaran K;Mangion K;Rajani R;Rana BS;Zolgharni M;Francis DP;Shun-Shin MJ;
{Journal}: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging
{Volume}: 17
{Issue}: 8
{Year}: 2024 Aug 28
{Factor}: 16.051
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2024.04.017
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is reported to be more reproducible and prognostic than ejection fraction. Automated, transparent methods may increase trust and uptake.<BR><B>OBJECTIVE: </B>The authors developed open machine-learning-based GLS methodology and validate it using multiexpert consensus from the Unity UK Echocardiography AI Collaborative.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We trained a multi-image neural network (Unity-GLS) to identify annulus, apex, and endocardial curve on 6,819 apical 4-, 2-, and 3-chamber images. The external validation dataset comprised those 3 views from 100 echocardiograms. End-systolic and -diastolic frames were each labelled by 11 experts to form consensus tracings and points. They also ordered the echocardiograms by visual grading of longitudinal function. One expert calculated global strain using 2 proprietary packages.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>The median GLS, averaged across the 11 individual experts, was -16.1 (IQR: -19.3 to -12.5). Using each case's expert consensus measurement as the reference standard, individual expert measurements had a median absolute error of 2.00 GLS units. In comparison, the errors of the machine methods were: Unity-GLS 1.3, proprietary A 2.5, proprietary B 2.2. The correlations with the expert consensus values were for individual experts 0.85, Unity-GLS 0.91, proprietary A 0.73, proprietary B 0.79. Using the multiexpert visual ranking as the reference, individual expert strain measurements found a median rank correlation of 0.72, Unity-GLS 0.77, proprietary A 0.70, and proprietary B 0.74.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Our open-source approach to calculating GLS agrees with experts' consensus as strongly as the individual expert measurements and proprietary machine solutions. The training data, code, and trained networks are freely available online.