Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Suinesiaputra, Avan en
dc.contributor.author Bluemke, David A en
dc.contributor.author Cowan, Brett en
dc.contributor.author Friedrich, Matthias G en
dc.contributor.author Kramer, Christopher M en
dc.contributor.author Kwong, Raymond en
dc.contributor.author Plein, Sven en
dc.contributor.author Schulz-Menger, Jeanette en
dc.contributor.author Westenberg, Jos JM en
dc.contributor.author Young, Alistair en
dc.contributor.author Nagel, Eike en
dc.date.accessioned 2018-10-23T02:59:43Z en
dc.date.issued 2015-07-28 en
dc.identifier.issn 1097-6647 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/43264 en
dc.description.abstract 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. en
dc.format.medium Electronic en
dc.language eng en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Details obtained from http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1097-6647/ en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 en
dc.subject Humans en
dc.subject Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular en
dc.subject Ventricular Dysfunction, Left en
dc.subject Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted en
dc.subject Observer Variation en
dc.subject Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine en
dc.subject Case-Control Studies en
dc.subject Reproducibility of Results en
dc.subject Predictive Value of Tests en
dc.subject Consensus en
dc.subject Ventricular Function, Left en
dc.subject Adult en
dc.subject Aged en
dc.subject Middle Aged en
dc.subject Canada en
dc.subject United States en
dc.subject Europe en
dc.subject Female en
dc.subject Male en
dc.title Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours. en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9 en
pubs.begin-page 63 en
pubs.volume 17 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The authors en
dc.identifier.pmid 26215273 en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/OpenAccess en
pubs.subtype research-article en
pubs.subtype Multicenter Study en
pubs.subtype Journal Article en
pubs.subtype Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural en
pubs.elements-id 492661 en
pubs.org-id Bioengineering Institute en
pubs.org-id ABI Associates en
pubs.org-id Medical and Health Sciences en
pubs.org-id Medical Sciences en
pubs.org-id Anatomy and Medical Imaging en
dc.identifier.eissn 1532-429X en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2015-07-28 en
pubs.dimensions-id 26215273 en


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics