Evaluation of a decision support system for interpretation of myocardial perfusion gated SPECT

  • Milan Lomsky
  • Peter Gjertsson
  • Lena Johansson
  • Jens Richter
  • Mattias Ohlsson
  • Deborah Tout
  • Andries van Aswegen
  • S. Richard Underwood
  • Lars Edenbrandt
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

We have recently presented a decision support system for interpreting myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). In this study, we wanted to evaluate the system in a separate hospital from where it was trained and to compare it with a quantification software package.

Methods

A completely automated method based on neural networks was trained for the interpretation of MPS regarding myocardial ischaemia and infarction using 418 MPS from one hospital. Features from each examination describing rest and stress perfusion, regional and global function were used as inputs to different neural networks. After the training session, the system was evaluated using 532 MPS from another hospital. The test images were also processed with the quantification software package Emory Cardiac Toolbox (ECTb). The images were interpreted by experienced clinicians at both the training and the test hospital, regarding the presence or absence of myocardial ischaemia and/or infarction and these interpretations were used as gold standard.

Results

The neural network showed a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 85% for myocardial ischaemia. The specificity for the ECTb was 46% (p < 0.001), measured at the same sensitivity. The neural network sensitivity for myocardial infarction was 89% and the specificity 96%. The corresponding specificity for the ECTb was 54% (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

A decision support system based on neural networks presents interpretations more similar to experienced clinicians compared to a conventional automated quantification software package. This study shows the feasibility of disseminating the expertise of experienced clinicians to less experienced physicians by the use of neural networks.

Keywords

Image interpretation Computer assisted Neural networks (computer) Radionuclide imaging Heart function tests Heart disease 

References

  1. 1.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, et al. Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;97:535–43. Erratum in: Circulation 1998;98:190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kang X, Berman DS, Van Train KS, Amanullah AM, Areeda J, Friedman JD, et al. Clinical validation of automatic quantitative defect size in rest technetium-99m-sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1441–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berman DS, Kang X, Van Train KF, Lewin HC, Cohen I, Areeda J, et al. Comparative prognostic value of automatic quantitative analysis versus semiquantitative visual analysis of exercise myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1987–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindahl D, Lanke J, Lundin A, Palmer J, Edenbrandt L. Improved classifications of myocardial bull’s-eye scintigrams with computer-based decision support system. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:96–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gjertsson P, Lomsky M, Richter J, Ohlsson M, Tout DA, Van Aswegen A, et al. The added value of ECG-gating for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and artificial neural networks. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2006;26(5):301–4. Sep.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Germano G, Kiat H, Kavanagh PB, Moriel M, Mazzanti M, Su HT, et al. Automatic quantification of ejection fraction from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:2138–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sharir T, Germano G, Waechter P, Kavanagh PB, Areeda JS, Gerlach J, et al. A new algorithm for the quantitation of myocardial perfusion SPECT. I. Validation and diagnostic yield. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:720–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Train KF, Areeda J, Garcia EV, Cooke CD, Maddahi J, Kiat H, et al. Quantitative same-day rest-stress technetium-99m-sestamibi SPECT: definition and validation of stress normal limits and criteria for abnormality. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1494–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lomsky M, Richter J, Johansson L, El-Ali H, Åström K, Ljungberg M, et al. A new automated method for analysis of gated-SPECT images based on a 3-dimensional heart shaped model. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2005;25:234–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lomsky M, Richter J, Johansson L, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Edenbrandt L. Validation of a new automated method for analysis of gated-SPECT images. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2006;26:139–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, eds. Parallel distributed processing, vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rögnvaldsson T. On Langevin updating in multiplayer perceptrons. Neural Comput. 1994;6:916–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanson SJ, Pratt LY. Comparing biases for minimal network construction with backpropagation. In: Touretzky DS, editor. Advances in neural information processing systems. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann; 1998. p. 177–85.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Train KF, Garcia EV, Maddahi J, Areeda J, Cooke CD, Kiat H, et al. Multicenter trial validation for quantitative analysis of same-day rest-stress technetium-99m-sestamibi myocardial tomograms. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:609–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riffenburgh RH. Statistics in medicine. London: Academic; 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindahl D, Toft J, Hesse B, Palmer J, Ali S, Lundin A, et al. Scandinavian test of artificial neural network for classification of myocardial perfusion images. Clin Physiol. 2000;20:253–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heden B, Ohlin H, Rittner R, Edenbrandt L. Acute myocardial infarction detected in the 12-lead ECG by artificial neural networks. Circulation. 1997;96:1798–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milan Lomsky
    • 1
  • Peter Gjertsson
    • 1
  • Lena Johansson
    • 1
  • Jens Richter
    • 2
  • Mattias Ohlsson
    • 3
  • Deborah Tout
    • 4
  • Andries van Aswegen
    • 4
  • S. Richard Underwood
    • 4
    • 5
  • Lars Edenbrandt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PhysiologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Exini Diagnostics ABLundSweden
  3. 3.Department of Theoretical PhysicsLund UniversityLundSweden
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineRoyal Brompton HospitalLondonUK
  5. 5.Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations