Improved robustness for deep learning-based segmentation of multi-center myocardial perfusion cardiovascular MRI datasets using data-adaptive uncertainty–guided space-time analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fully automatic analysis of myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging datasets enables rapid and objective reporting of stress/rest studies in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease. Developing deep learning techniques that can analyze multi-center datasets despite limited training data and variations in software (pulse sequence) and hardware (scanner vendor) is an ongoing challenge. METHODS: Datasets from three medical centers acquired at 3T (n = 150 subjects; 21,150 first-pass images) were included: an internal dataset (inD; n = 95) and two external datasets (exDs; n = 55) used for evaluating the robustness of the trained deep neural network (DNN) models against differences in pulse sequence (exD-1) and scanner vendor (exD-2). A subset of inD (n = 85) was used for training/validation of a pool of DNNs for segmentation, all using the same spatiotemporal U-Net architecture and hyperparameters but with different parameter initializations. We employed a space-time sliding-patch analysis approach that automatically yields a pixel-wise "uncertainty map" as a byproduct of the segmentation process. In our approach, dubbed data-adaptive uncertainty-guided space-time (DAUGS) analysis, a given test case is segmented by all members of the DNN pool and the resulting uncertainty maps are leveraged to automatically select the "best" one among the pool of solutions. For comparison, we also trained a DNN using the established approach with the same settings (hyperparameters, data augmentation, etc.). RESULTS: The proposed DAUGS analysis approach performed similarly to the established approach on the inD (Dice score for the testing subset of inD: 0.896 ± 0.050 vs 0.890 ± 0.049; p = n.s.) whereas it significantly outperformed on the exDs (Dice for exD-1: 0.885 ± 0.040 vs 0.849 ± 0.065, p < 0.005; Dice for exD-2: 0.811 ± 0.070 vs 0.728 ± 0.149, p < 0.005). Moreover, the number of image series with "failed" segmentation (defined as having myocardial contours that include bloodpool or are noncontiguous in ≥1 segment) was significantly lower for the proposed vs the established approach (4.3% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0005). CONCLUSION: The proposed DAUGS analysis approach has the potential to improve the robustness of deep learning methods for segmentation of multi-center stress perfusion datasets with variations in the choice of pulse sequence, site location, or scanner vendor.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".