Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance evaluation of computer-aided automated master frame selection techniques for fetal echocardiography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Fetal echocardiography is widely used for the assessment of fetal heart development and detection of congenital heart disease (CHD). Preliminary examination of the fetal heart involves the four-chamber view which indicates the presence of all the four chambers and its structural symmetry. Examination of various cardiac parameters is generally done using the clinically selected diastole frame. This largely depends on the expertise of the sonographer and is prone to intra- and interobservational errors. To overcome this, automated frame selection technique is proposed for the recognition of fetal cardiac chamber from fetal echocardiography.

Methods

Three techniques have been proposed in this research study to automate the process of determining the frame referred as “Master Frame” that can be used for the measurement of the cardiac parameters. The first method uses frame similarity measures (FSM) for the determination of the master frame from the given cine loop ultrasonic sequences. FSM makes use of similarity measures such as correlation, structural similarity index (SSIM), peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR), and mean square error (MSE) to identify the cardiac cycle, and all the frames in one cardiac cycle are superimposed to form the master frame. The final master frame is obtained by considering the average of the master frame obtained using each similarity measure. The second method uses averaging of ± 20% from the midframes (AMF). The third method uses averaging of all the frames (AAF) of the cine loop sequence. Both diastole and master frames have been annotated by the clinical experts, and their ground truths are compared for validation. No segmentation techniques have been used to avoid the variability of the performance of various segmentation techniques. All the proposed schemes were evaluated using six fidelity metrics such as Dice coefficient, Jaccard ratio, Hausdorff distance, structural similarity index, mean absolute error, and Pratt figure of merit.

Results

The three proposed techniques were tested on the frames extracted from 95 ultrasound cine loop sequences between 19 and 32 weeks of gestation. The feasibility of the techniques was determined by the computation of fidelity metrics between the master frame derived and the diastole frame chosen by the clinical experts. The FSM-based identified master frame found to closely match with manually chosen diastole frame and also ensures statistically significant. The method also detects automatically the cardiac cycle. The resultant master frame obtained through AMF though found to be identical to that of the diastole frame, the size of the chambers found to be reduced that can lead to inaccurate chamber measurement. The master frame obtained through AAF was not found to be identical to that of clinical diastole frame.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the frame similarity measure (FSM)–based master frame can be introduced in the clinical routine for segmentation followed by cardiac chamber measurements. Such automated master frame selection also overcomes the manual intervention of earlier reported techniques in the literature. The fidelity metrics assessment further confirms the suitability of proposed master frame for automated fetal chamber recognition.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hernandaze-Andrade E, Patwardha M, Cruz-Lemini M, Luewan S (2017) Early evaluation of the fetal heart, fetal diagnosis and therapy. 42:161–173

  2. Kumar S, Sriraam N (2014) Study of fetal anatomy using ultrasound images: a systematic conceptual review. Int J Biomed Clin Eng 3(2):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caserta L, Ruggeri Z, D’Emidio L, Coco C, Cignini P, Girgenti A, Mangiafico L, Giorlandino C (2008) Two-dimensional fetal echocardiography: where we are. J Prenat Med 2(3):31–35

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hutchison D, McBrien A, Howley L, Yamamoto Y, Sekar P, Motan T et al (2017) First-trimester fetal echocardiography: identification of cardiac structures for screening from 6 to 13 weeks’ gestational age. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 30(8):P763-772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ebadollahi S, Chang S, Wu H (2004) Automatic view recognition in echocardiogram videos using parts-based representation. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition CVPR 2004, II-II.

  6. Zhou SK, Park JH, Georgescu B, Comaniciu D, Simopoulos C, Otsuki J (2006) Image-based multiclass boosting and echocardiographic view classification. 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), 1559–1565.

  7. Balaji GN, Subashini TS, Chidambaram N (2015) Automatic classification of cardiac views in echocardiogram using histogram and statistical features. Procedia Comput Sci 46:1569–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baumgartner CF, Kamnitsas K, Matthew J, Fletcher TP, Smith S, Koch LM et al (2017) SonoNet: real-time detection and localisation of fetal standard scan planes in freehand ultrasound. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 36(11):2204–2215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaluva KC (2018) CardioNet: identification of fetal cardiac standard planes from 2D Ultrasound data, 1st Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, Amsterdam.

  10. Copel JA, Pilu G, Green J, Hobbins JC (1987) Fetal echocardiographic screening for congenital heart disease: the importance of the four-chamber view. Am J Obstet Gynecol 157:648–655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shi C, Song L, Li Y, Dai S (2002) Value of four-chamber view of the fetal echocardiography for the prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease. Zhonghua fu chan ke za hi 37(7):385–387

    Google Scholar 

  12. Naderi S, McGahan JP (2008) A primer for fetal cardiac imaging: a stepwise approach for 2-dimensional imaging. Ultrasound Q 24(3):195–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deng Y, Wang Y, Shen Y, Chen P (2012) Active cardiac model and its application on structure detection form early fetal ultrasound sequences. computerized medical imaging and graphics 36, 239 – 247.

  14. Sriraam N, Vijayalakshmi S, Suresh S (2012) Automated screening of fetal heart chambers from 2-D ultrasound cineloop sequences. Int J Biomed Clin Eng 1(2), 24–33, July-December

  15. Vijayalakshmi S, Sriraam N, Suresh S, Muttan S (2013) Automated region mask for four-chamber fetal heart biometry. J Clin Monit Comput 27:205–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sriraam N, Vijayalakshmi S, Suresh S (2012) Computer-aided fetal cardiac scanning using 2D ultrasound: perspectives of fetal heart biometry. Int J Biomed Clin Eng 1(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sardsud C, Auephanwiriyakul S, Umpon NT, Tongson T (2015) Patch based fetal heart chamber segmentation in ultrasound sequences using possibilistic clustering. Comput Intell, Model Simul 2166–8523

  18. Zhang J, Gajjala S, Agarwal P, Tison GH, Hallock LA, Beussnik Nelson L et al (2018) A computer vision pipeline for automated determination of cardiac structure and function and detection of disease by two-dimensional echocardiography.

  19. Candilla PG, Martinez SS, Crispi F, Bijnens B (2020) Machine learning in fetal cardiology: what to expect. Fetal Diagn Ther 47:363–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu S, Wang Y, Yang X, Lei B, Liu L, Li SX et al (2019) Deep learning in medical ultrasound analysis: a review. Engineering 5(2):261–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mynard JP, Penny DJ, Smolich JJ (2008) Accurate automatic detection of end-diastole from left ventricular pressure using peak curvature. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(11):2651–2657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kachenoura N, Delouche A, Hermant D, Frouin F, Diebold B (2007) Automatic detection of end systole within a sequence of left ventricular echocardiographic images using autocorrelation and mitral valve motion detection. 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE 4504–4507.

  23. Gifani P, Behnam H, Shalbaf A et al (2010) A, Automatic detection of end-diastole and end-systole from echocardiography images using manifold learning. Physiol Meas 31(9):1091–1103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shalbaf A, Behnam H, Gifanni P, Alzadeh-Sani Z (2011) Automatic detection of end systole and end diastole within a sequence of 2-D echocardiographic images using modified Isomap algorithm. 1st Middle East Conference on Biomedical Engineering 217–220.

  25. Darvishi S, Behnam H, Pouladian M, Samiei N (2013) Measuring left ventricular volumes in two dimensional echocardiography image sequence using level-set method for automatic detection of end-diastole and end-systole frames. Res Cardiovasc Med 2(1):39

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wick CA, McClellan JH, Ravichandran L, Tridandapani S (2013) Detection of cardiac quiescence from B-mode echocardiography using a correlation-based frame-to-frame deviation measure. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med 1:1900211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ravichandran L, Wick CA, McClellan JH, Liu T, Tridandapani S (2014) Detection of quiescent cardiac phases in echocardiography data using nonlinear filtering and boundary detection techniques. J Digit Imaging 27:625–632

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Shalbaf A, Alzadeh-Sani Z, Behnam H (2015) Echocardiography without electrocardiogram using nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods. J Med Ultrason 42(2):137–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Balaji GN, Subashini TS, Chidambaram N (2015) Detection of heart muscle damage from automated analysis of echocardiogram video. IETE J Res 61(3):236–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zolgharni M, Negoita M, Dhutia NM, Mielewczik M, Manoharan K, Sohaib, et al (2017) Automatic detection of end-diastolic and end-systolic frames in 2D echocardiography. Echocardiography 34(7):956–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Z, Wang E, Ziu Y (2020) Image segmentation evaluation: a survey of methods. Artifcial Intell Rev 53:5637–5674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Harikumar R, Kumar V (2015) Performance analysis of medical image segmentation and edge detection using MEM and PSO algorithms. Appl Math Inf Sci 9(6):3235–3243

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jaccard P (1912) The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol 11(2):37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dice RL (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26(3):297–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hausdorff F (1914) Grundzüge der Mengenlehre,. Leipzig: Veit ISBN 978-0-8284-0061-9

  36. Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(4):600–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1960) Principles and procedures of statistics with special reference to the biological sciences. McGraw Hill

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pratt WK (1991) Digital image processing. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sardsud C, Auephanwiriyakul S et al (2015) Patch-based fetal heart chamber segmentation in ultrasound sequences using possibilistic clustering. Seventh International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation

  40. Sulas E, Urru M et al (2020) Automatic detection of complete and measurable cardiac cycles in antenatal pulsed-wave Doppler signals. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 190

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank, Mediscan Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India, for providing the required ultrasound dataset for carrying out the current research work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Medical Electronics and Computing, M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India

    Sriraam N

  2. Dept of ECE, M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India

    Punyaprabha V

  3. Research Scholar, Centre of Imaging Technologies, M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India

    Sushma TV

  4. Dept. of Electronics & Communication, SJCIT, Chickballapur, India

    Sushma TV

  5. Mediscan Systems Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, India

    Suresh S

Authors
  1. Sriraam N
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Punyaprabha V
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sushma TV
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Suresh S
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sriraam N.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sriraam N, Punyaprabha V, Sushma TV et al. Performance evaluation of computer-aided automated master frame selection techniques for fetal echocardiography. Med Biol Eng Comput 61, 1723–1744 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02814-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-023-02814-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation