MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132701691 · doi:10.1002/jmri.27555

Improved Quantification of Myocardium Scar in Late Gadolinium Enhancement Images: Deep Learning Based Image Fusion Approach

2021· article· en· W3132701691 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed S. Fahmy, Ethan J. Rowin, Raymond H. Chan, Warren J. Manning, Martin S. Maron, Reza Nezafat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkMagnetic resonance imagingSegmentationMedicineSteady-state free precession imagingArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceCardiac magnetic resonanceNuclear medicinePopulationImage qualityPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Quantification of myocardium scarring in late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging can be challenging due to low scar‐to‐background contrast and low image quality. To resolve ambiguous LGE regions, experienced readers often use conventional cine sequences to accurately identify the myocardium borders. Purpose To develop a deep learning model for combining LGE and cine images to improve the robustness and accuracy of LGE scar quantification. Study Type Retrospective. Population A total of 191 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients: 1) 162 patients from two sites randomly split into training (50%; 81 patients), validation (25%, 40 patients), and testing (25%; 41 patients); and 2) an external testing dataset (29 patients) from a third site. Field Strength/Sequence 1.5T, inversion‐recovery segmented gradient‐echo LGE and balanced steady‐state free‐precession cine sequences Assessment Two convolutional neural networks (CNN) were trained for myocardium and scar segmentation, one with and one without LGE‐Cine fusion. For CNN with fusion, the input was two aligned LGE and cine images at matched cardiac phase and anatomical location. For CNN without fusion, only LGE images were used as input. Manual segmentation of the datasets was used as reference standard. Statistical Tests Manual and CNN‐based quantifications of LGE scar burden and of myocardial volume were assessed using Pearson linear correlation coefficients ( r ) and Bland–Altman analysis. Results Both CNN models showed strong agreement with manual quantification of LGE scar burden and myocardium volume. CNN with LGE‐Cine fusion was more robust than CNN without LGE‐Cine fusion, allowing for successful segmentation of significantly more slices (603 [95%] vs. 562 (89%) of 635 slices; P < 0.001). Also, CNN with LGE‐Cine fusion showed better agreement with manual quantification of LGE scar burden than CNN without LGE‐Cine fusion (%Scar LGE‐cine = 0.82 × %Scar manual , r = 0.84 vs. %Scar LGE = 0.47 × %Scar manual , r = 0.81) and myocardium volume (Volume LGE‐cine = 1.03 × Volume manual , r = 0.96 vs. Volume LGE = 0.91 × Volume manual , r = 0.91). Data Conclusion CNN based LGE‐Cine fusion can improve the robustness and accuracy of automated scar quantification. Level of Evidence 3 Technical Efficacy 1

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207