Evaluation of deep learning estimation of whole heart anatomy from automated cardiovascular magnetic resonance short- and long-axis analyses in UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Standard methods of heart chamber volume estimation in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) typically utilize simple geometric formulae based on a limited number of slices. We aimed to evaluate whether an automated deep learning neural network prediction of 3D anatomy of all four chambers would show stronger associations with cardiovascular risk factors and disease than standard volume estimation methods in the UK Biobank. METHODS AND RESULTS: A deep learning network was adapted to predict 3D segmentations of left and right ventricles (LV, RV) and atria (LA, RA) at ∼1 mm isotropic resolution from CMR short- and long-axis 2D segmentations obtained from a fully automated machine learning pipeline in 4723 individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 5733 without in the UK Biobank. Relationships between volumes at end-diastole (ED) and end-systole (ES) and risk/disease factors were quantified using univariate, multivariate, and logistic regression analyses. Strength of association between deep learning volumes and standard volumes was compared using the area under the receiving operator characteristic curve (AUC). Univariate and multivariate associations between deep learning volumes and most risk and disease factors were stronger than for standard volumes (higher R2 and more significant P-values), particularly for sex, age, and body mass index. AUCs for all logistic regressions were higher for deep learning volumes than standard volumes (P < 0.001 for all four chambers at ED and ES). CONCLUSION: Neural network reconstructions of whole heart volumes had significantly stronger associations with CVD and risk factors than standard volume estimation methods in an automatic processing pipeline.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".