Artificial Intelligence-Based Arterial Input Function for the Quantitative Assessment of Myocardial Blood Flow and Perfusion Reserve in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: A Validation Study

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: To validate an artificial intelligence-based arterial input function (AI-AIF) deep learning model for myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification during stress perfusion and assess its extension to rest perfusion, enabling myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) calculation. <b>Methods</b>: Sixty patients with or at risk for vascular cognitive impairment, prospectively enrolled in the CRUCIAL consortium, underwent quantitative stress and rest myocardial perfusion imaging using a 3 T MRI system. Perfusion imaging was performed using a dual-sequence (DS) protocol after intravenous administration of 0.05 mmol/kg gadobutrol. Retrospectively, the AI-AIF was estimated from standard perfusion images using a 1-D U-Net model trained to predict an unsaturated AIF from a saturated input. MBF was quantified using Fermi function-constrained deconvolution with motion compensation. MPR was calculated as the stress-to-rest MBF ratio. MBF and MPR estimates from both AIF methods were compared using Bland-Altman analyses. <b>Results</b>: Complete stress and rest perfusion datasets were available for 31 patients. A bias of -0.07 mL/g/min was observed between AI-AIF and DS-AIF for stress MBF (median 2.19 vs. 2.30 mL/g/min), with concordant coronary artery disease classification based on the optimal MBF threshold in over 92% of myocardial segments and coronary arteries. Larger biases of 0.12 mL/g/min and -0.30 were observed for rest MBF (1.12 vs. 1.02 mL/g/min) and MPR (2.31 vs. 1.84), respectively, with lower concordance using the optimal MPR threshold (85% of segments, 72% of arteries). <b>Conclusions</b>: The AI-AIF model showed comparable performance to DS-AIF for stress MBF quantification but requires further training for accurate rest MBF and MPR assessment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2025-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15182341
Primary Topic
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial Intelligence-Based Arterial Input Function for the Quantitative Assessment of Myocardial Blood Flow and Perfusion Reserve in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: A Validation Study

Jonathan Bennett, Maud van Dinther, Jouke Smink, Amedeo Chiribiri et al.
Diagnostics
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
article

Artificial Intelligence-Based Arterial Input Function for the Quantitative Assessment of Myocardial Blood Flow and Perfusion Reserve in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: A Validation Study

Jonathan Bennett, Maud van Dinther, Jouke Smink, Amedeo Chiribiri, Joachim Ernst Wildberger, Cian M. Scannell, Walter H. Backes, Robert J. Holtackers, Lara R. van der Meulen
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: To validate an artificial intelligence-based arterial input function (AI-AIF) deep learning model for myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification during stress perfusion and assess its extension to rest perfusion, enabling myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) calculation. <b>Methods</b>: Sixty patients with or at risk for vascular cognitive impairment, prospectively enrolled in the CRUCIAL consortium, underwent quantitative stress and rest myocardial perfusion imaging using a 3 T MRI system. Perfusion imaging was performed using a dual-sequence (DS) protocol after intravenous administration of 0.05 mmol/kg gadobutrol. Retrospectively, the AI-AIF was estimated from standard perfusion images using a 1-D U-Net model trained to predict an unsaturated AIF from a saturated input. MBF was quantified using Fermi function-constrained deconvolution with motion compensation. MPR was calculated as the stress-to-rest MBF ratio. MBF and MPR estimates from both AIF methods were compared using Bland-Altman analyses. <b>Results</b>: Complete stress and rest perfusion datasets were available for 31 patients. A bias of -0.07 mL/g/min was observed between AI-AIF and DS-AIF for stress MBF (median 2.19 vs. 2.30 mL/g/min), with concordant coronary artery disease classification based on the optimal MBF threshold in over 92% of myocardial segments and coronary arteries. Larger biases of 0.12 mL/g/min and -0.30 were observed for rest MBF (1.12 vs. 1.02 mL/g/min) and MPR (2.31 vs. 1.84), respectively, with lower concordance using the optimal MPR threshold (85% of segments, 72% of arteries). <b>Conclusions</b>: The AI-AIF model showed comparable performance to DS-AIF for stress MBF quantification but requires further training for accurate rest MBF and MPR assessment.

DiagnosticsVol. 15(18)
St Thomas' Hospital (GB), King's College London (GB), Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL), Maastricht University (NL), Philips (Netherlands) (NL), University College London (GB), Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.