Myocardial scar segmentation from magnetic resonance images using convolutional neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate segmentation of the myocardial fibrosis or scar may provide important advancements for the prediction and management of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in patients with cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we propose a semi-automated method for segmentation of myocardial scar from late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance image (LGE-MRI) using a convolutional neural network (CNN). In contrast to image intensitybased methods, CNN-based algorithms have the potential to improve the accuracy of scar segmentation through the creation of high-level features from a combination of convolutional, detection and pooling layers. Our developed algorithm was trained using 2,336,703 image patches extracted from 420 slices of five 3D LGE-MR datasets, then validated on 2,204,178 patches from a testing dataset of seven 3D LGE-MR images including 624 slices, all obtained from patients with chronic myocardial infarction. For evaluation of the algorithm, we compared the algorithmgenerated segmentations to manual delineations by experts. Our CNN-based method reported an average Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), precision, and recall of 94.50 ± 3.62%, 96.08 ± 3.10%, and 93.96 ± 3.75% as the accuracy of segmentation, respectively. As compared to several intensity threshold-based methods for scar segmentation, the results of our developed method have a greater agreement with manual expert segmentation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".