Automated quantification of myocardial tissue characteristics from native T1 mapping using neural networks with uncertainty-based quality-control

Tissue characterisation with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) parametric mapping has the potential to detect and quantify both focal and diffuse alterations in myocardial structure not assessable by late gadolinium enhancement. Native T1 mapping in particular has shown promise as a useful biomarker to support diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic decision-making in ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with Bayesian inference are a category of artificial neural networks which model the uncertainty of the network output. This study presents an automated framework for tissue characterisation from native shortened modified Look-Locker inversion recovery ShMOLLI T1 mapping at 1.5 T using a Probabilistic Hierarchical Segmentation (PHiSeg) network (PHCUMIS 119–127, 2019). In addition, we use the uncertainty information provided by the PHiSeg network in a novel automated quality control (QC) step to identify uncertain T1 values. The PHiSeg network and QC were validated against manual analysis on a cohort of the UK Biobank containing healthy subjects and chronic cardiomyopathy patients (N=100 for the PHiSeg network and N=700 for the QC). We used the proposed method to obtain reference T1 ranges for the left ventricular (LV) myocardium in healthy subjects as well as common clinical cardiac conditions. T1 values computed from automatic and manual segmentations were highly correlated (r=0.97). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement between the automated and manual measurements. The average Dice metric was 0.84 for the LV myocardium. The sensitivity of detection of erroneous outputs was 91%. Finally, T1 values were automatically derived from 11,882 CMR exams from the UK Biobank. For the healthy cohort, the mean (SD) corrected T1 values were 926.61 (45.26), 934.39 (43.25) and 927.56 (50.36) for global, interventricular septum and free-wall respectively. The proposed pipeline allows for automatic analysis of myocardial native T1 mapping and includes a QC process to detect potentially erroneous results. T1 reference values were presented for healthy subjects and common clinical cardiac conditions from the largest cohort to date using T1-mapping images.

[1]  D. Levy,et al.  Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. , 1998, Circulation.

[2]  O. Simonetti,et al.  The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[4]  Guido Gerig,et al.  User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability , 2006, NeuroImage.

[5]  Skipper Seabold,et al.  Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python , 2010, SciPy.

[6]  Theodore P Abraham,et al.  The diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by cardiovascular magnetic resonance , 2012, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[7]  S. K. White,et al.  Normal variation of magnetic resonance T1 relaxation times in the human population at 1.5 T using ShMOLLI , 2013, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[8]  M. Robson,et al.  Myocardial T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) and CMR Working Group of the European Society of Cardiology consensus statement , 2013, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[9]  S. K. White,et al.  Identification and Assessment of Anderson-Fabry Disease by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Noncontrast Myocardial T1 Mapping , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[10]  Stefan Neubauer,et al.  Myocardial Tissue Characterization by Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2014, Journal of thoracic imaging.

[11]  R. Peshock,et al.  Fully automated tool to identify the aorta and compute flow using phase‐contrast MRI: Validation and application in a large population based study , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[12]  Andreas Greiser,et al.  Normal diastolic and systolic myocardial T1 values at 1.5-T MR imaging: correlations and blood normalization. , 2014, Radiology.

[13]  Thomas Brox,et al.  U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation , 2015, MICCAI.

[14]  P. Matthews,et al.  UK Biobank’s cardiovascular magnetic resonance protocol , 2015, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[15]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition , 2014, ICLR.

[16]  Eike Nagel,et al.  T1 Mapping in Characterizing Myocardial Disease: A Comprehensive Review. , 2016, Circulation research.

[17]  Richard B. Thompson,et al.  Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2* and extracellular volume: A consensus statement by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) , 2017, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[18]  Stefan K. Piechnik,et al.  Measurement of myocardial native T1 in cardiovascular diseases and norm in 1291 subjects , 2017, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[19]  P. Kellman,et al.  Blood correction reduces variability and gender differences in native myocardial T1 values at 1.5 T cardiovascular magnetic resonance – a derivation/validation approach , 2017, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[20]  Charles Blundell,et al.  Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles , 2016, NIPS.

[21]  Amit R. Patel,et al.  Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy. , 2017, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[22]  Daniel S. Knight,et al.  Diagnosis and assessment of dilated cardiomyopathy: a guideline protocol from the British Society of Echocardiography , 2017, Echo research and practice.

[23]  Alex Kendall,et al.  What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision? , 2017, NIPS.

[24]  A. Greiser,et al.  Blood T1* correction increases accuracy of extracellular volume measurements using 3T cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Comparison of T1 and T1* maps , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[25]  Nicholas Zabaras,et al.  Bayesian Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Networks for Surrogate Modeling and Uncertainty Quantification , 2018, J. Comput. Phys..

[26]  M. Markl,et al.  Variability of native T1 values: implication for defining regional myocardial changes using MRI , 2018, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[27]  U. Reiter,et al.  Cardiac magnetic resonance T1 mapping. Part 1: Aspects of acquisition and evaluation. , 2018, European journal of radiology.

[28]  Klaus H. Maier-Hein,et al.  A Probabilistic U-Net for Segmentation of Ambiguous Images , 2018, NeurIPS.

[29]  Ben Glocker,et al.  Automated cardiovascular magnetic resonance image analysis with fully convolutional networks , 2017, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[30]  Ben Glocker,et al.  Automated quality control in image segmentation: application to the UK Biobank cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging study , 2019, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[31]  Bishesh Khanal,et al.  Confident Head Circumference Measurement from Ultrasound with Real-time Feedback for Sonographers , 2019, MICCAI.

[32]  Ender Konukoglu,et al.  PHiSeg: Capturing Uncertainty in Medical Image Segmentation , 2019, MICCAI.

[33]  Reza Nezafat,et al.  Automated analysis of cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial native T1 mapping images using fully convolutional neural networks , 2019, Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[34]  Wenjia Bai,et al.  Fully Automated, Quality-Controlled Cardiac Analysis From CMR: Validation and Large-Scale Application to Characterize Cardiac Function , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.