Szczegóły publikacji
Opis bibliograficzny
New approaches to AI methods for screening cardiomegaly on chest radiographs / Patrycja S. Matusik, Zbisław TABOR, Iwona Kucybała, Jarosław D. Jarczewski, Tadeusz J. Popiela // Applied Sciences (Basel) [Dokument elektroniczny]. — Czasopismo elektroniczne ; ISSN 2076-3417. — 2024 — vol. 14 iss. 24 art. no. 11605, s. 1–22. — Wymagania systemowe: Adobe Reader. — Bibliogr. s. 21–22, Abstr. — Publikacja dostępna online od: 2024-12-12
Autorzy (5)
- Matusik Patrycja
- AGHTabor Zbisław
- Kucybała Iwona
- Jarczewski Jarosław
- Popiela Tadeusz J.
Słowa kluczowe
Dane bibliometryczne
| ID BaDAP | 163473 |
|---|---|
| Data dodania do BaDAP | 2025-10-13 |
| Tekst źródłowy | URL |
| DOI | 10.3390/app142411605 |
| Rok publikacji | 2024 |
| Typ publikacji | artykuł w czasopiśmie |
| Otwarty dostęp |  |
| Creative Commons | |
| Czasopismo/seria | Applied Sciences (Basel) |
Abstract
Background: Cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) and transverse cardiac diameter (TCD) are parameters that are used to assess cardiac size on chest radiographs (CXRs). We aimed to investigate the performance and efficiency of artificial intelligence (AI) in screening for cardiomegaly on CXRs. Methods: The U-net architecture was designed for lung and heart segmentation. The CTR and TCD were then calculated using these labels and a mathematical algorithm. For the training set, we retrospectively included 65 randomly selected patients who underwent CXRs, while for the testing set, we chose 50 patients who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and had available CXRs in the medical documentation. Results: Using U-net for the training set, the Dice coefficient for the lung was 0.984 ± 0.003 (min. 0.977), while for the heart it was 0.983 ± 0.004 (min. 0.972). For the testing set, the Dice coefficient for the lung was 0.970 ± 0.012 (min. 0.926), while for the heart it was 0.950 ± 0.021 (min. 0.871). The mean CTR and TCD measurements were slightly greater when calculated from either manual or automated segmentation than when manually read. Receiver operating characteristic analyses showed that both the CTR and TCD measurements calculated from either manual or automated segmentation, or when manually read, were good predictors of cardiomegaly diagnosed in CMR. However, McNemar tests have shown that diagnoses made with TCD, rather than CTR, were more consistent with CMR diagnoses. According to a different definition of cardiomegaly based on CMR imaging, accuracy for CTR measurements ranged from 62.0 to 74.0% for automatic segmentation (for TCD it ranged from 64.0 to 72.0%). Conclusion: The use of AI may optimize the screening process for cardiomegaly on CXRs. Future studies should focus on improving the accuracy of AI algorithms and on assessing the usefulness both of CTR and TCD measurements in screening for cardiomegaly.
