Back

VIsual STAndardized Quantification of LGE (VISTAQ), a contour-less method for late gadolinium enhancement quantification

Aquaro, G. D.; Licordari, R.; De Gori, C.; Todiere, G.; Ianni, U.; Barison, A.; De Luca, A.; Folgheraiter, a.; Grigoratos, C.; alberti, m.; lombardo, m.; De Caterina, R.; Sinagra, G.; Emdin, M.; Di Bella, G.; fulceri, l.

2026-04-15 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.04.09.26350552 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) quantification by cardiovascular magnetic resonance is central to risk stratification in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), yet conventional techniques require contour tracing and region-of-interest (ROI) placement, which may reduce reproducibility and increase analysis time. We developed a novel visual standardized approach, the Visual Standardized Quantification of LGE (VISTAQ), that does not require myocardial contouring, arbitrary ROI positioning, or dedicated post-processing software. Methods: In this multicenter, multivendor retrospective study, LGE images from 400 patients (100 prior myocardial infarction, 250 HCM, 50 other non-ischemic heart diseases) were analyzed. VISTAQ subdivides each myocardial segment into transmural mini-segments and classifies LGE visually using predefined criteria, expressing global LGE burden as the percentage of positive mini-segments. Reproducibility was assessed in 250 patients across different observer expertise levels using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland?Altman analysis. In 100 HCM patients, VISTAQ was compared with conventional methods (mean+2SD, +5SD, +6SD, FWHM, visual thresholding). Prognostic performance was evaluated in 250 HCM patients over a median 5-year follow-up. Results: VISTAQ demonstrated excellent intra- and inter-observer reproducibility (ICC up to 0.98 and 0.97, respectively), consistent across disease subtypes. Compared with conventional techniques, VISTAQ showed similar ICC to FWHM but significantly lower net and absolute inter-observer differences (median absolute difference 1.3%). Mean+2SD markedly overestimated LGE, whereas mean+6SD slightly underestimated LGE compared with VISTAQ, mean+5SD, FWHM, and visual thresholding. Analysis time was substantially shorter with VISTAQ (median 105 vs. 375 seconds, p<0.0001). During follow-up, 21 hard cardiac events occurred in HCM population. An LGE threshold >10% predicted events with higher accuracy using VISTAQ (AUC 0.90; sensitivity 85%; specificity 94%) compared with mean+6SD (AUC 0.75; sensitivity 57%; specificity 93%). Conclusions: VISTAQ provides highly reproducible, time-efficient LGE quantification without dedicated software and demonstrates non-inferior prognostic discrimination in HCM compared with conventional threshold-based techniques.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.0%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 4%
12.1%
3
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.7%
4
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.2%
6
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
8
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
9
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.8%
10
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
11
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
13
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
14
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.8%
16
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
17
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
18
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
19
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
20
Nature Cardiovascular Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
22
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
23
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.8%
26
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
27
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%