A Deep Learning Segmentation Pipeline for Cardiac T1 Mapping Using MRI Relaxation–based Synthetic Contrast Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To design and evaluate an automated deep learning method for segmentation and analysis of cardiac MRI T1 maps with use of synthetic T1-weighted images for MRI relaxation–based contrast augmentation. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included MRI scans acquired between 2016 and 2019 from 100 patients (mean age ± SD, 55 years ± 13; 72 men) across various clinical abnormalities with use of a modified Look-Locker inversion recovery, or MOLLI, sequence to quantify native T1 (T1native), postcontrast T1 (T1post), and extracellular volume (ECV). Data were divided into training (n = 60) and internal (n = 40) test subsets. “Synthetic” T1-weighted images were generated from the T1 exponential inversion-recovery signal model at a range of optimal inversion times, yielding high blood-myocardium contrast, and were used for contrast-based image augmentation during training and testing of a convolutional neural network for myocardial segmentation. Automated segmentation, T1, and ECV were compared with experts with use of Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs), correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman analysis. An external test dataset (n = 147) was used to assess model generalization. Results Internal testing showed high myocardial DSC relative to experts (0.81 ± 0.08), which was similar to interobserver DSC (0.81 ± 0.08). Automated segmental measurements strongly correlated with experts (T1native, R = 0.87; T1post, R = 0.91; ECV, R = 0.92), which were similar to interobserver correlation (T1native, R = 0.86; T1post, R = 0.94; ECV, R = 0.95). External testing showed strong DSC (0.80 ± 0.09) and T1native correlation (R = 0.88) between automatic and expert analysis. Conclusion This deep learning method leveraging synthetic contrast augmentation may provide accurate automated T1 and ECV analysis for cardiac MRI data acquired across different abnormalities, centers, scanners, and T1 sequences. Keywords: MRI, Cardiac, Tissue Characterization, Segmentation, Convolutional Neural Network, Deep Learning Algorithms, Machine Learning Algorithms, Supervised Learning Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2022
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".