Foundation versus domain-specific models for left ventricular segmentation on cardiac ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Segment Anything Model (SAM) was fine-tuned on the EchoNet-Dynamic dataset and evaluated on external transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) datasets from CAMUS (University Hospital of St Etienne) and Mayo Clinic (99 patients: 58 TTE, 41 POCUS). Fine-tuned SAM was superior or comparable to MedSAM. The fine-tuned SAM also outperformed EchoNet and U-Net models, demonstrating strong generalization, especially on apical 2-chamber (A2C) images (fine-tuned SAM vs. EchoNet: CAMUS-A2C: DSC 0.891 ± 0.040 vs. 0.752 ± 0.196, p < 0.0001) and POCUS (DSC 0.857 ± 0.047 vs. 0.667 ± 0.279, p < 0.0001). Additionally, SAM-enhanced workflow reduced annotation time by 50% (11.6 ± 4.5 sec vs. 5.7 ± 1.7 sec, p < 0.0001) while maintaining segmentation quality. We demonstrated an effective strategy for fine-tuning a vision foundation model for enhancing clinical workflow efficiency and supporting human-AI collaboration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".