MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3118658244 · doi:10.1002/mp.14710

Technical Note: Fully automatic segmental relaxometry (FASTR) for cardiac magnetic resonance T1 mapping

2021· article· en· W3118658244 on OpenAlexafffund
Nitish Bhatt, Venkat Ramanan, Hayden Gunraj, Fumin Guo, Labonny Biswas, Xiuling Qi, Idan Roifman, Graham A. Wright, Nilesh R. Ghugre

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and TradeGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSteady-state free precession imagingMedicineNuclear medicineRelaxometryCardiac imagingCardiac magnetic resonanceMagnetic resonance imagingVentricleSegmentationRadiologyArtificial intelligenceCardiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cardiac relaxometry techniques, particularly T1 mapping, have recently gained clinical importance in various cardiac pathologies. Myocardial T1 and extracellular volume are usually calculated from manual identification of left ventricular epicardial and endocardial regions. This is a laborious process, particularly for large volume studies. Here we present a fully automated relaxometry framework (FASTR) for segmental analysis of T1 maps (both native and postcontrast) and partition coefficient (λ). METHODS: Patients (N = 11) were imaged postacute myocardial infarction on a 1.5T clinical scanner. The scan protocol involved CINE-SSFP imaging, native, and post-contrast T1 mapping using the Modified Look-Locker Inversion (MOLLI) recovery sequence. FASTR consisted of automatic myocardial segmentation of spatio-temporally coregistered CINE images as an initial guess, followed by refinement of the contours on the T1 maps to derive segmental T1 and λ. T1 and λ were then compared to those obtained from two trained expert observers. RESULTS: Robust endocardial and epicardial contours were achieved on T1 maps despite the presence of infarcted tissue. Relative to experts, FASTR resulted in myocardial Dice coefficients (native T1: 0.752 ± 0.041; postcontrast T1: 0.751 ± 0.057) that were comparable to interobserver Dice (native T1: 0.803 ± 0.045; postcontrast T1: 0.799 ± 0.054). There were strong correlations observed for T1 and λ derived from experts and FASTR (native T1: r = 0.83; postcontrast T1: r = 0.87; λ: r = 0.78; P < 0.0001), which were comparable to inter-expert correlation coefficients (native T1: r = 0.90; postcontrast T1: r = 0.93; λ: r = 0.80; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our fully automated framework, FASTR, can generate accurate myocardial segmentations for native and postcontrast MOLLI T1 analysis without the need for manual intervention. Such a design is appealing for high volume clinical protocols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→