Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSuinesiaputra, Avanen_US
dc.contributor.authorBluemke, David A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCowan, Brett R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFriedrich, Matthias G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKramer, Christopher M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKwong, Raymonden_US
dc.contributor.authorPlein, Svenen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchulz-Menger, Jeanetteen_US
dc.contributor.authorWestenberg, Jos J. M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Alistair A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNagel, Eikeen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-01T13:28:14Z
dc.date.issued2015en_US
dc.identifier.citationSuinesiaputra, A., D. A. Bluemke, B. R. Cowan, M. G. Friedrich, C. M. Kramer, R. Kwong, S. Plein, et al. 2015. “Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours.” Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 17 (1): 63. doi:10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9.en
dc.identifier.issn1097-6647en
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:21462232
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9en
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517503/pdf/en
dash.licenseLAAen_US
dc.subjectLeft ventricular functionen
dc.subjectBenchmarksen
dc.subjectReproducibilityen
dc.subjectMulti-centeren
dc.subjectLeft ventricular massen
dc.subjectImage analysisen
dc.titleQuantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contoursen
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden
dc.relation.journalJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonanceen
dash.depositing.authorKwong, Raymonden_US
dc.date.available2015-09-01T13:28:14Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9*
dash.authorsorderedfalse
dash.contributor.affiliatedKwong, Raymond


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record