Algorithms for left atrial wall segmentation and thickness – Evaluation on an open-source CT and MRI image database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural changes to the wall of the left atrium are known to occur with conditions that predispose to Atrial fibrillation. Imaging studies have demonstrated that these changes may be detected non-invasively. An important indicator of this structural change is the wall's thickness. Present studies have commonly measured the wall thickness at few discrete locations. Dense measurements with computer algorithms may be possible on cardiac scans of Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The task is challenging as the atrial wall is a thin tissue and the imaging resolution is a limiting factor. It is unclear how accurate algorithms may get and how they compare in this new emerging area. We approached this problem of comparability with the Segmentation of Left Atrial Wall for Thickness (SLAWT) challenge organised in conjunction with MICCAI 2016 conference. This manuscript presents the algorithms that had participated and evaluation strategies for comparing them on the challenge image database that is now open-source. The image database consisted of cardiac CT (n=10) and MRI (n=10) of healthy and diseased subjects. A total of 6 algorithms were evaluated with different metrics, with 3 algorithms in each modality. Segmentation of the wall with algorithms was found to be feasible in both modalities. There was generally a lack of accuracy in the algorithms and inter-rater differences showed that algorithms could do better. Benchmarks were determined and algorithms were ranked to allow future algorithms to be ranked alongside the state-of-the-art techniques presented in this work. A mean atlas was also constructed from both modalities to illustrate the variation in thickness within this small cohort.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".