MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254473384 · doi:10.1016/j.media.2016.01.004

Evaluation of state-of-the-art segmentation algorithms for left ventricle infarct from late Gadolinium enhancement MR images

2016· article· en· W2254473384 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Image Analysis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilKing's College LondonMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsThresholdingBenchmarkingSegmentationGround truthComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingVentricleBenchmark (surveying)Steady-state free precession imagingAlgorithmMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyImage (mathematics)Cardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have demonstrated the feasibility of late Gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for guiding the management of patients with sequelae to myocardial infarction, such as ventricular tachycardia and heart failure. Clinical implementation of these developments necessitates a reproducible and reliable segmentation of the infarcted regions. It is challenging to compare new algorithms for infarct segmentation in the left ventricle (LV) with existing algorithms. Benchmarking datasets with evaluation strategies are much needed to facilitate comparison. This manuscript presents a benchmarking evaluation framework for future algorithms that segment infarct from LGE CMR of the LV. The image database consists of 30 LGE CMR images of both humans and pigs that were acquired from two separate imaging centres. A consensus ground truth was obtained for all data using maximum likelihood estimation. Six widely-used fixed-thresholding methods and five recently developed algorithms are tested on the benchmarking framework. Results demonstrate that the algorithms have better overlap with the consensus ground truth than most of the n-SD fixed-thresholding methods, with the exception of the Full-Width-at-Half-Maximum (FWHM) fixed-thresholding method. Some of the pitfalls of fixed thresholding methods are demonstrated in this work. The benchmarking evaluation framework, which is a contribution of this work, can be used to test and benchmark future algorithms that detect and quantify infarct in LGE CMR images of the LV. The datasets, ground truth and evaluation code have been made publicly available through the website: https://www.cardiacatlas.org/web/guest/challenges.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it