ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018
Development and clinical validation of a hybrid method for semiautomated left ventricle endocardial and epicardial boundary extraction on cine-magnetic resonance images.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We describe a hybrid method for left ventricle (LV) endocardial and epicardial segmentation on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) images requiring minimal operator intervention. Endocardium extraction results from the union of three independent estimations based on adaptive thresholding, region growing, and active contour with Chan-Vese energy function. Epicardium segmentation relies on conditional morphological dilation of the endocardial mask followed by active contour optimization. The proposed method was first evaluated using an open access database of 18 CMR for which expert manual contouring was available. The method was further validated on a retrospective cohort of 29 patients, who underwent CMR with expert manual segmentation. Regarding the open access database, similarity (Dice index) between hybrid and expert segmentations was good for end-diastolic (ED) endocardium (0.92), end-systolic (ES) endocardium (0.88), and ED epicardium (0.92). As for derived LV parameters, concordance (Lin's coefficient) was good for ED volume (0.91), ES volume (0.93), ejection fraction (EF; 0.89), and fair for myocardial mass (MM; 0.74). Regarding the retrospective patient study, concordance between expert and hybrid estimations was excellent for ED volume (0.95), ES volume (0.96), good for EF (0.86), and fair for MM (0.71). Hybrid segmentation resulted in small biases ([Formula: see text] for ED volume, [Formula: see text] for ES volume, [Formula: see text] for EF, and [Formula: see text] for MM) with little clinical relevance and acceptable for routine practice. The quickness and robustness of the proposed hybrid method and its ability to provide LV volumes, functions, and masses highly concordant with those given by expert segmentation support its pertinence for routine clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.