Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Left Ventricle Segmentation and Function Evaluation Using a Trained Deep-Learning Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac MRI is the gold standard for evaluating left ventricular myocardial mass (LVMM), end-systolic volume (LVESV), end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), stroke volume (LVSV), and ejection fraction (LVEF). Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can provide automatic segmentation of LV myocardium (LVF) and blood cavity (LVC) and quantification of LV function; however, the performance is typically degraded when applied to new datasets. A 2D U-net with Monte-Carlo dropout was trained on 45 cine MR images and the model was used to segment 10 subjects from the ACDC dataset. The initial segmentations were post-processed using a continuous kernel-cut method. The refined segmentations were employed to update the trained model. This procedure was iterated several times and the final updated U-net model was used to segment the remaining 90 ACDC subjects. Algorithm and manual segmentations were compared using Dice coefficient (DSC) and average surface distance in a symmetric manner (ASSD). The relationships between algorithm and manual LV indices were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficient (r), Bland-Altman analyses, and paired t-tests. Direct application of the pre-trained model yielded DSC of 0.74 ± 0.12 for LVM and 0.87 ± 0.12 for LVC. After fine-tuning, DSC was 0.81 ± 0.09 for LVM and 0.90 ± 0.09 for LVC. Algorithm LV function measurements were strongly correlated with manual analyses (r = 0.86–0.99, p < 0.0001) with minimal biases of −8.8 g for LVMM, −0.9 mL for LVEDV, −0.2 mL for LVESV, −0.7 mL for LVSV, and −0.6% for LVEF. The procedure required ∼12 min for fine-tuning and approximately 1 s to contour a new image on a Linux (Ubuntu 14.02) desktop (Inter(R) CPU i7-7770, 4.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM) with a GPU (GeForce, GTX TITAN X, 12 GB Memory). This approach provides a way to incorporate a trained CNN to segment and quantify previously unseen cardiac MR datasets without needing manual annotation of the unseen datasets.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".