MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387458892 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2023.1225922

Left atrium 4D-flow segmentation with high-resolution contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography

2023· article· en· W4387458892 on OpenAlexaff
Han‐Suk Kim, Stephen B. Wilton, Julio García

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineMagnetic resonance angiographyCardiac cycleThrombusNuclear medicineRadiologyNuclear magnetic resonanceCardiologyArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) leads to intracardiac thrombus and an associated risk of stroke. Phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) with flow-encoding in all three spatial directions (4D-flow) provides a time-resolved 3D volume image with 3D blood velocity, which brings individual hemodynamic information affecting thrombus formation. As the resolution and contrast of 4D-flow are limited, we proposed a semi-automated 4D-flow segmentation method for the left atrium (LA) using a standard-of-care contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) and registration technique. Methods: LA of 54 patients with AF were segmented from 4D-flow taken in sinus rhythm using two segmentation methods. (1) Phase-contrast magnetic resonance angiography (PC-MRA) was calculated from 4D-flow, and LA was segmented slice-by-slice manually. (2) LA and other structures were segmented from CE-MRA and transformed into 4D-flow coordinates by registration with the mutual information method. Overlap of volume was tested by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and the average symmetric surface distance (ASSD). Mean velocity and stasis were calculated to compare the functional property of LA from two segmentation methods. Results: LA volumes from segmentation on CE-MRA were strongly correlated with PC-MRA volume, although mean CE-MRA volumes were about 10% larger. The proposed registration scheme resulted in visually successful registration in 76% of cases after two rounds of registration. The mean of DSC of the registered cases was 0.770 ± 0.045, and the mean of ASSD was 2.704 mm ± 0.668 mm. Mean velocity had no significant difference between the two segmentation methods, and mean stasis had a 3.3% difference. Conclusion: The proposed CE-MRA segmentation and registration method can generate segmentation for 4D-flow images. This method will facilitate 4D-flow analysis for AF patients by making segmentation easier and overcoming the limit of resolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207