ArticleClinical imaging2022
Comparison of machine learning and deep learning for view identification from cardiac magnetic resonance images.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Radiologist Productivity with Artificial Intelligence in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A quantum-optimized approach for breast cancer detection using SqueezeNet-SVM.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Modernizing Neuro-Oncology: The Impact of Imaging, Liquid Biopsies, and AI on Diagnosis and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Towards a cardiovascular magnetic resonance foundation model for multi-task cardiac image analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Article
- Technological Advancements in Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual Reality Technologies for Surgery: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Predicting dyslipidemia incidence: unleashing machine learning algorithms on Lifestyle Promotion Project data.BMC public health · 2024Article
- A study on the application of radiomics based on cardiac MR non-enhanced cine sequence in the early diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Detection of hypoplastic left heart syndrome anatomy from cardiovascular magnetic resonance images using machine learning.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Human-centered explainability for life sciences, healthcare, and medical informatics.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence is increasingly utilized to aid in the interpretation of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies. One of the first steps is the identification of the imaging plane depicted, which can be achieved by both deep learning (DL) and classical machine learning (ML) techniques without user input. We aimed to compare the accuracy of ML and DL for CMR view classification and to identify potential pitfalls during training and testing of the algorithms.
methodsTo train our DL and ML algorithms, we first established datasets by retrospectively selecting 200 CMR cases. The models were trained using two different cohorts (passively and actively curated) and applied data augmentation to enhance training. Once trained, the models were validated on an external dataset, consisting of 20 cases acquired at another center. We then compared accuracy metrics and applied class activation mapping (CAM) to visualize DL model performance.
resultsThe DL and ML models trained with the passively-curated CMR cohort were 99.1% and 99.3% accurate on the validation set, respectively. However, when tested on the CMR cases with complex anatomy, both models performed poorly. After training and testing our models again on all 200 cases (active cohort), validation on the external dataset resulted in 95% and 90% accuracy, respectively. The CAM analysis depicted heat maps that demonstrated the importance of carefully curating the datasets to be used for training.
conclusionsBoth DL and ML models can accurately classify CMR images, but DL outperformed ML when classifying images with complex heart anatomy.
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.