Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive Machine-Learning Algorithm for Cardiac Imaging: A Pilot Study for Differentiating Constrictive Pericarditis From Restrictive Cardiomyopathy

Open access
Sengupta, Partho P., Huang, Yen-Min, Bansal, Manish, Ashrafi, Ali, Fisher, Matt, Shameer, Khader, Gall, Walt, Dudley, Joel T.·2016·Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging

Abstract

Background—: Associating a patient’s profile with the memories of prototypical patients built through previous repeat clinical experience is a key process in clinical judgment. We hypothesized that a similar process using a cognitive computing tool would be well suited for learning and recalling multidimensional attributes of speckle tracking echocardiography data sets derived from patients with known constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy. Methods and Results—: Clinical and echocardiographic data of 50 patients with constrictive pericarditis and 44 with restrictive cardiomyopathy were used for developing an associative memory classifier–based machine-learning algorithm. The speckle tracking echocardiography data were normalized in reference to 47 controls with no structural heart disease, and the diagnostic area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the associative memory classifier was evaluated for differentiating constrictive pericarditis from restrictive cardiomyopathy. Using only speckle tracking echocardiography variables, associative memory classifier achieved a diagnostic area under the curve of 89.2%, which improved to 96.2% with addition of 4 echocardiographic variables. In comparison, the area under the curve of early diastolic mitral annular velocity and left ventricular longitudinal strain were 82.1% and 63.7%, respectively. Furthermore, the associative memory classifier demonstrated greater accuracy and shorter learning curves than other machine-learning approaches, with accuracy asymptotically approaching 90% after a training fraction of 0.3 and remaining flat at higher training fractions. Conclusions—: This study demonstrates feasibility of a cognitive machine-learning approach for learning and recalling patterns observed during echocardiographic evaluations. Incorporation of machine-learning algorithms in cardiac imaging may aid standardized assessments and support the quality of interpretations, particularly for novice readers with limited experience.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circimaging.115.004330

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Sengupta, P. P., Huang, Y.-M., Bansal, M., Ashrafi, A., Fisher, M., Shameer, K., Gall, W., & Dudley, J. T.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging
Published
2016-06
Volume
9
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 1941-9651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1942-0080
OpenAlex
W2413889045
Cited by
203
References
8
FWCI
30.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive Machine-Learning Algorithm for Cardiac Imaging: A Pilot Study for Differentiating Constrictive Pericarditis From Restrictive Cardiomyopathy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circimaging.115.004330
The paper
Sengupta, P. P., Huang, Y.-M., Bansal, M., Ashrafi, A., Fisher, M., Shameer, K., Gall, W., & Dudley, J. T. (2016). Cognitive Machine-Learning Algorithm for Cardiac Imaging: A Pilot Study for Differentiating Constrictive Pericarditis From Restrictive Cardiomyopathy. Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1161/circimaging.115.004330

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.