4.6 Article

FLORA software: semi-automatic LGE-CMR analysis tool for cardiac lesions identification and characterization

期刊

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
卷 127, 期 6, 页码 589-601

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01491-8

关键词

Cardiac radiology; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE); Ischemic cardiomyopathies; Non-ischemic cardiomyopathies; Quantification software

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed an automatic software FLORA that can identify, classify, and quantify ischemic and non-ischemic myocardial lesions, improving the observer's performance and the consistency of evaluations.
Purpose Today there is a growing interest in the quantification of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiac pathologies. We build an automatic self-made free software FLORA (For Late gadOlinium enhanced aReas clAssification) for the recognition, classification and quantification of LGE areas that allows to improve the observer's performances and that homogenizes the evaluations between different operators. Material and methods We have retrospectively selected 120 CMR exams: 40-ischemic with evident scar tissue on LGE sequences; 40-non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; 40-any myocardial alteration on CMR, especially on LGE sequences. FLORA's performance was compared to the radiologist's evaluation. Results FLORA identified both ischemic and non-ischemic myocardial lesions in almost all cases (80/80 and 79/80 for the double-Gaussian fit method and fixed-shift method, respectively, with sensitivity and specificity of 100%/98.8% and 55%/50%, respectively). The best results were obtained from the classification of ischemic myocardial damage, which was correctly identified in 85%-95% of cases. FLORA also increases the agreement between observers and allows a quantitative evaluation of transmurality. Conclusions FLORA has proven to be an applicable tool that improves and facilitates the classification of LGE areas allowing their quantification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据