Observer-Related Versus Cross-Modality Variability in Ventricular Quantification by Cardiac CT and Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Background/Objectives: Ventricular measurements from cardiac computed tomography (CCT) and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) may differ due to modality-specific, physiological, or observer-dependent reasons. We compared cross-modality disagreement with intra-modality interobserver variability. Methods: Fifty-four patients with CCT and CMR examinations within 36 months were retrospectively analyzed. Left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), right ventricular (RV) EDV, and LV mass were measured on the same platform; 18 underwent independent second-observer measurements. The primary metric was the standard deviation of paired differences [SD(D)], with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In the repeat-measurement subset, cross-modality SDs were 29.78 mL, 29.19 mL, and 16.72 g for LV EDV, RV EDV, and LV mass, versus 4.83, 7.33, and 6.71 within CCT and 3.57, 3.58, and 4.11 within CMR. Cross-modality variability was 6.16, 3.98, and 2.49 times the CCT and 8.34, 8.15, and 4.07 times the CMR interobserver variability; all 95% CIs exceeded 1. Examination-interval restriction did not materially reduce dispersion, and body-surface-area indexation changed scale but not relative disagreement. Conclusions: Under routine clinical conditions, cross-modality variability in EDV and LV mass exceeded interobserver variability by 2.5- to 8.3-fold. CCT-CMR differences are unlikely to reflect observer-related post-processing variability alone, and consistent modality selection appears preferable to interchanging quantitative thresholds.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-10-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16203280
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

Observer-Related Versus Cross-Modality Variability in Ventricular Quantification by Cardiac CT and Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Anca Bacârea, Kincső-Zsófia Lőrincz, Răzvan-Andrei Licu, Marian Pop et al.
Diagnostics
Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
article

Observer-Related Versus Cross-Modality Variability in Ventricular Quantification by Cardiac CT and Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

Anca Bacârea, Kincső-Zsófia Lőrincz, Răzvan-Andrei Licu, Marian Pop, Liviu Moraru, Andrei Manea, Dragoș Constantin Cucoranu, Dariana Elena Pătrîntașu, Gheorghe-Marian Rotariu, Alexandra-Mihaela Țolescu-Dobra, Claudia-Raluca Mariean, Anca Dumitrașcu
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Ventricular measurements from cardiac computed tomography (CCT) and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) may differ due to modality-specific, physiological, or observer-dependent reasons. We compared cross-modality disagreement with intra-modality interobserver variability. Methods: Fifty-four patients with CCT and CMR examinations within 36 months were retrospectively analyzed. Left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV), right ventricular (RV) EDV, and LV mass were measured on the same platform; 18 underwent independent second-observer measurements. The primary metric was the standard deviation of paired differences [SD(D)], with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In the repeat-measurement subset, cross-modality SDs were 29.78 mL, 29.19 mL, and 16.72 g for LV EDV, RV EDV, and LV mass, versus 4.83, 7.33, and 6.71 within CCT and 3.57, 3.58, and 4.11 within CMR. Cross-modality variability was 6.16, 3.98, and 2.49 times the CCT and 8.34, 8.15, and 4.07 times the CMR interobserver variability; all 95% CIs exceeded 1. Examination-interval restriction did not materially reduce dispersion, and body-surface-area indexation changed scale but not relative disagreement. Conclusions: Under routine clinical conditions, cross-modality variability in EDV and LV mass exceeded interobserver variability by 2.5- to 8.3-fold. CCT-CMR differences are unlikely to reflect observer-related post-processing variability alone, and consistent modality selection appears preferable to interchanging quantitative thresholds.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(20)
Universitatea de Medicină, Farmacie, Științe și Tehnologie „George Emil Palade” din Târgu Mureș (RO), Spitalul Clinic Judetean de Urgenta Târgu Mureş (RO), Spitalul Clinic Judetean Mures (RO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
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.