Low-complexity lung ultrasound video scoring by means of intensity projection-based video compression.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, efforts have been made towards semi-quantitative analysis of lung ultrasound (LUS) data to assess the patient's condition. Several methods have been proposed in this regard, with a focus on frame-level analysis, which was then used to assess the condition at the video and prognostic levels. However, no extensive work has been done to analyze lung conditions directly at the video level. This study proposes a novel method for video-level scoring based on compression of LUS video data into a single image and automatic classification to assess patient's condition. The method utilizes maximum, mean, and minimum intensity projection-based compression of LUS video data over time. This enables to preserve hyper- and hypo-echoic data regions, while compressing the video down to a maximum of three images. The resulting images are then classified using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Finally, the worst predicted score given among the images is assigned to the corresponding video. The results show that this compression technique can achieve a promising agreement at the prognostic level (81.62%), while the video-level agreement remains comparable with the state-of-the-art (46.19%). Conclusively, the suggested method lays down the foundation for LUS video compression, shifting from frame-level to direct video-level analysis of LUS data.

Benchmark methodological approach for the application of artificial intelligence to lung ultrasound data from COVID-19 patients: From frame to prognostic-level.

Automated ultrasound imaging assessment of the effect of CoronaVirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on lungs has been investigated in various studies using artificial intelligence-based (AI) methods. However, an extensive analysis of state-of-the-art Convolutional Neural Network-based (CNN) models for frame-level scoring, a comparative analysis of aggregation techniques for video-level scoring, together with a thorough evaluation of the capability of these methodologies to provide a clinically valuable prognostic-level score is yet missing within the literature. In addition to that, the impact on the analysis of the posterior probability assigned by the network to the predicted frames as well as the impact of temporal downsampling of LUS data are topics not yet extensively investigated. This paper takes on these challenges by providing a benchmark analysis of methods from frame to prognostic level. For frame-level scoring, state-of-the-art deep learning models are evaluated with additional analysis of best performing model in transfer-learning settings. A novel cross-correlation based aggregation technique is proposed for video and exam-level scoring. Results showed that ResNet-18, when trained from scratch, outperformed the existing methods with an F1-Score of 0.659. The proposed aggregation method resulted in 59.51%, 63.29%, and 84.90% agreement with clinicians at the video, exam, and prognostic levels, respectively; thus, demonstrating improved performances over the state of the art. It was also found that filtering frames based on the posterior probability shows higher impact on the LUS analysis in comparison to temporal downsampling. All of these analysis were conducted over the largest standardized and clinically validated LUS dataset from COVID-19 patients.

Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19 and Post-COVID-19 Patients, an Evidence-Based Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, lung ultrasound (LUS) was utilized to assess coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Often, imaging protocols were however defined arbitrarily and not following an evidence-based approach. Moreover, extensive studies on LUS in post-COVID-19 patients are currently lacking. This study analyses the impact of different LUS imaging protocols on the evaluation of COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 LUS data. METHODS: LUS data from 220 patients were collected, 100 COVID-19 positive and 120 post-COVID-19. A validated and standardized imaging protocol based on 14 scanning areas and a 4-level scoring system was implemented. We utilized this dataset to compare the capability of 5 imaging protocols, respectively based on 4, 8, 10, 12, and 14 scanning areas, to intercept the most important LUS findings. This to evaluate the optimal trade-off between a time-efficient imaging protocol and an accurate LUS examination. We also performed a longitudinal study, aimed at investigating how to eventually simplify the protocol during follow-up. Additionally, we present results on the agreement between AI models and LUS experts with respect to LUS data evaluation. RESULTS: A 12-areas protocol emerges as the optimal trade-off, for both COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 patients. For what concerns follow-up studies, it appears not to be possible to reduce the number of scanning areas. Finally, COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 LUS data seem to show differences capable to confuse AI models that were not trained on post-COVID-19 data, supporting the hypothesis of the existence of LUS patterns specific to post-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: A 12-areas acquisition protocol is recommended for both COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 patients, also during follow-up.

On the Impact of Different Lung Ultrasound Imaging Protocols in the Evaluation of Patients Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: How Many Acquisitions Are Needed?

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is currently being extensively used for the evaluation of patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019. In the past months, several imaging protocols have been proposed in the literature. However, how the different protocols would compare when applied to the same patients had not been investigated yet. To this end, in this multicenter study, we analyzed the outcomes of 4 different LUS imaging protocols, respectively based on 4, 8, 12, and 14 LUS acquisitions, on data from 88 patients. Results show how a 12-area acquisition system seems to be a good tradeoff between the acquisition time and accuracy.