Temporal Uncertainty Localization to Enable Human-in-the-loop Analysis of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Cardiac MRI Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) is a widely used modality for diagnosing myocardial blood flow (perfusion) abnormalities. During a typical free-breathing DCE-CMRI scan, close to 300 time-resolved images of myocardial perfusion are acquired at various contrast "wash in/out" phases. Manual segmentation of myocardial contours in each time-frame of a DCE image series can be tedious and time-consuming, particularly when non-rigid motion correction has failed or is unavailable. While deep neural networks (DNNs) have shown promise for analyzing DCE-CMRI datasets, a "dynamic quality control" (dQC) technique for reliably detecting failed segmentations is lacking. Here we propose a new space-time uncertainty metric as a dQC tool for DNN-based segmentation of free-breathing DCE-CMRI datasets by validating the proposed metric on an external dataset and establishing a human-in-the-loop framework to improve the segmentation results. In the proposed approach, we referred the top 10% most uncertain segmentations as detected by our dQC tool to the human expert for refinement. This approach resulted in a significant increase in the Dice score (p<0.001) and a notable decrease in the number of images with failed segmentation (16.2% to 11.3%) whereas the alternative approach of randomly selecting the same number of segmentations for human referral did not achieve any significant improvement. Our results suggest that the proposed dQC framework has the potential to accurately identify poor-quality segmentations and may enable efficient DNN-based analysis of DCE-CMRI in a human-in-the-loop pipeline for clinical interpretation and reporting of dynamic CMRI 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".