Scientific Reports (Jan 2024)

Unlocking cardiac motion: assessing software and machine learning for single-cell and cardioid kinematic insights

  • Margherita Burattini,
  • Francesco Paolo Lo Muzio,
  • Mirko Hu,
  • Flavia Bonalumi,
  • Stefano Rossi,
  • Christina Pagiatakis,
  • Nicolò Salvarani,
  • Lorenzo Fassina,
  • Giovanni Battista Luciani,
  • Michele Miragoli

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52081-9
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 15

Abstract

Read online

Abstract The heart coordinates its functional parameters for optimal beat-to-beat mechanical activity. Reliable detection and quantification of these parameters still represent a hot topic in cardiovascular research. Nowadays, computer vision allows the development of open-source algorithms to measure cellular kinematics. However, the analysis software can vary based on analyzed specimens. In this study, we compared different software performances in in-silico model, in-vitro mouse adult ventricular cardiomyocytes and cardioids. We acquired in-vitro high-resolution videos during suprathreshold stimulation at 0.5-1-2 Hz, adapting the protocol for the cardioids. Moreover, we exposed the samples to inotropic and depolarizing substances. We analyzed in-silico and in-vitro videos by (i) MUSCLEMOTION, the gold standard among open-source software; (ii) CONTRACTIONWAVE, a recently developed tracking software; and (iii) ViKiE, an in-house customized video kinematic evaluation software. We enriched the study with three machine-learning algorithms to test the robustness of the motion-tracking approaches. Our results revealed that all software produced comparable estimations of cardiac mechanical parameters. For instance, in cardioids, beat duration measurements at 0.5 Hz were 1053.58 ms (MUSCLEMOTION), 1043.59 ms (CONTRACTIONWAVE), and 937.11 ms (ViKiE). ViKiE exhibited higher sensitivity in exposed samples due to its localized kinematic analysis, while MUSCLEMOTION and CONTRACTIONWAVE offered temporal correlation, combining global assessment with time-efficient analysis. Finally, machine learning reveals greater accuracy when trained with MUSCLEMOTION dataset in comparison with the other software (accuracy > 83%). In conclusion, our findings provide valuable insights for the accurate selection and integration of software tools into the kinematic analysis pipeline, tailored to the experimental protocol.