Fully-automated deep learning-based flow quantification of 2D CINE phase contrast MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Time-resolved, 2D-phase-contrast MRI (2D-CINE-PC-MRI) enables in vivo blood flow analysis. However, accurate vessel contour delineation (VCD) is required to achieve reliable results. We sought to evaluate manual analysis (MA) compared to the performance of a deep learning (DL) application for fully-automated VCD and flow quantification and corrected semi-automated analysis (corSAA). METHODS: We included 97 consecutive patients (age = 52.9 ± 16 years, 41 female) with 2D-CINE-PC-MRI imaging on 1.5T MRI systems at sinotubular junction (STJ), and 28/97 also received 2D-CINE-PC at main pulmonary artery (PA). A cardiovascular radiologist performed MA (reference) and corSAA (built-in tool) in commercial software for all cardiac time frames (median: 20, total contours per analysis: 2358 STJ, 680 PA). DL-analysis automatically performed VCD, followed by net flow (NF) and peak velocity (PV) quantification. Contours were compared using Dice similarity coefficients (DSC). Discrepant cases (> ± 10 mL or > ± 10 cm/s) were reviewed in detail. RESULTS: DL was successfully applied to 97% (121/125) of the 2D-CINE-PC-MRI series (STJ: 95/97, 98%, PA: 26/28, 93%). Compared to MA, mean DSC were 0.91 ± 0.02 (DL), 0.94 ± 0.02 (corSAA) at STJ, and 0.85 ± 0.08 (DL), 0.93 ± 0.02 (corSAA) at PA; this indicated good to excellent DL-performance. Flow quantification revealed similar NF at STJ (p = 0.48) and PA (p > 0.05) between methods while PV assessment was significantly different (STJ: p < 0.001, PA: p = 0.04). A detailed review showed noisy voxels in MA and corSAA impacted PV results. Overall, DL analysis compared to human assessments was accurate in 113/121 (93.4%) cases. CONCLUSIONS: Fully-automated DL-analysis of 2D-CINE-PC-MRI provided flow quantification at STJ and PA at expert level in > 93% of cases with results being available instantaneously. KEY POINTS: • Deep learning performed flow quantification on clinical 2D-CINE-PC series at the sinotubular junction and pulmonary artery at the expert level in > 93% of cases. • Location detection and contouring of the vessel boundaries were performed fully-automatic with results being available instantaneously compared to human assessments which approximately takes three minutes per location. • The evaluated tool indicates usability in daily practice.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".