ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2019
A model-guided method for improving coronary artery tree extractions from CCTA images.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Graph neural networks for automatic extraction and labeling of the coronary artery tree in CT angiography.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Research Progress of Machine Learning and Deep Learning in Intelligent Diagnosis of the Coronary Atherosclerotic Heart Disease.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Review
- Automatic coronary artery plaque thickness comparison between baseline and follow-up CCTA images.Medical physics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAutomatically extracted coronary artery trees (CATs) from coronary computed tomography angiography images could contain incorrect extractions which require manual corrections before they can be used in clinical practice. A model-guided method for improving the extracted CAT is described to automatically detect potential incorrect extractions and improve them.
methodsThe proposed method is a coarse-to-fine approach. A coarse improvement is first applied on all vessels in the extracted CAT, and then a fine improvement is applied only on vessels with higher clinical significance. Based upon a decision tree, the proposed method automatically and iteratively performs improvement operations for the entire extracted CAT until it meets the stop criteria. The improvement in the extraction quality obtained by the proposed method is measured using a scoring system. 18 datasets were used to determine optimal values for the parameters involved in the model-guided method and 122 datasets were used for evaluation.
resultsCompared to the initial automatic extractions, the proposed method improves the CATs for 122 datasets from an average quality score of 87 ± 6 to 93 ± 4. The developed method is able to run within 2 min on a typical workstation. The difference in extraction quality after automatic improvement is negatively correlated with the initial extraction quality (R = - 0.694, P < 0.001).
conclusionWithout deteriorating the initially extracted CATs, the presented method automatically detects incorrect extractions and improves the CATs to an average quality score of 93 guided by anatomical statistical models.
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.