Goto

Collaborating Authors

 aortic valve stenosis


A deep learning approach to using wearable seismocardiography (SCG) for diagnosing aortic valve stenosis and predicting aortic hemodynamics obtained by 4D flow MRI

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

In this paper, we explored the use of deep learning for the prediction of aortic flow metrics obtained using 4D flow MRI using wearable seismocardiography (SCG) devices. 4D flow MRI provides a comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular hemodynamics, but it is costly and time-consuming. We hypothesized that deep learning could be used to identify pathological changes in blood flow, such as elevated peak systolic velocity Vmax in patients with heart valve diseases, from SCG signals. We also investigated the ability of this deep learning technique to differentiate between patients diagnosed with aortic valve stenosis (AS), non-AS patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), non-AS patients with a mechanical aortic valve (MAV), and healthy subjects with a normal tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). In a study of 77 subjects who underwent same-day 4D flow MRI and SCG, we found that the Vmax values obtained using deep learning and SCGs were in good agreement with those obtained by 4D flow MRI. Additionally, subjects with TAV, BAV, MAV, and AS could be classified with ROC-AUC values of 92%, 95%, 81%, and 83%, respectively. This suggests that SCG obtained using low-cost wearable electronics may be used as a supplement to 4D flow MRI exams or as a screening tool for aortic valve disease.


Electrocardiogram screening for aortic valve stenosis using artificial intelligence

#artificialintelligence

Between 1989 and 2019, 258 607 adults [mean age 63 16.3 years; women 122 790 (48%)] with an echocardiography and an ECG performed within 180 days were identified from the Mayo Clinic database. Moderate to severe AS by echocardiography was present in 9723 (3.7%) patients. Artificial intelligence training was performed in 129 788 (50%), validation in 25 893 (10%), and testing in 102 926 (40%) randomly selected subjects. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 78%, 74%, and 74%, respectively. The sensitivity increased and the specificity decreased as age increased.