Deep Learning Based Cardiac MRI Segmentation: Do We Need Experts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning methods are the de facto solutions to a multitude of medical image analysis tasks. Cardiac MRI segmentation is one such application, which, like many others, requires a large number of annotated data so that a trained network can generalize well. Unfortunately, the process of having a large number of manually curated images by medical experts is both slow and utterly expensive. In this paper, we set out to explore whether expert knowledge is a strict requirement for the creation of annotated data sets on which machine learning can successfully be trained. To do so, we gauged the performance of three segmentation models, namely U-Net, Attention U-Net, and ENet, trained with different loss functions on expert and non-expert ground truth for cardiac cine–MRI segmentation. Evaluation was done with classic segmentation metrics (Dice index and Hausdorff distance) as well as clinical measurements, such as the ventricular ejection fractions and the myocardial mass. The results reveal that generalization performances of a segmentation neural network trained on non-expert ground truth data is, to all practical purposes, as good as that trained on expert ground truth data, particularly when the non-expert receives a decent level of training, highlighting an opportunity for the efficient and cost-effective creation of annotations for cardiac data sets.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".