ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2021
Texture-based probability mapping for automatic scar assessment in late gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance images.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI Applied to Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Precision Medicine in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate a novel texture-based probability mapping (TPM) method for scar size estimation in LGE-CMRI.
methodsThis retrospective proof-of-concept study included chronic myocardial scars from 52 patients. The TPM was compared with three signal intensity-based methods: manual segmentation, full-width-half-maximum (FWHM), and 5-standard deviation (5-SD). TPM is generated using machine learning techniques, expressing the probability of scarring in pixels. The probability is derived by comparing the texture of the 3 × 3 pixel matrix surrounding each pixel with reference dictionaries from patients with established myocardial scars. The Sørensen-Dice coefficient was used to find the optimal TPM range. A non-parametric test was used to test the correlation between infarct size and remodeling parameters. Bland-Altman plots were performed to assess agreement among the methods.
resultsThe study included 52 patients (76.9% male; median age 64.5 years (54, 72.5)). A TPM range of 0.328-1.0 was found to be the optimal probability interval to predict scar size compared to manual segmentation, median dice (25th and 75th percentiles)): 0.69(0.42-0.81). There was no significant difference in the scar size between TPM and 5-SD. However, both 5-SD and TPM yielded larger scar sizes compared with FWHM (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002). There were strong correlations between scar size measured by TPM, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, r = -0.76, p < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (r = 0.73, p < 0.001), and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (r = 0.75, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe TPM method is comparable with current SI-based methods, both for the scar size assessment and the relationship with left ventricular remodeling when applied on LGE-CMRI.
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.