Evaluation of state-of-the-art segmentation algorithms for left ventricle infarct from late Gadolinium enhancement MR images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".