ArticleScientific reports2022
Introduction of Lazy Luna an automatic software-driven multilevel comparison of ventricular function quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of vendor artificial intelligence solutions for automated post-processing of short-axis cine images in cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A semi-automated quality assurance tool for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: application to outlier detection, artificial intelligence evaluation and trainee feedback.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Sex-specific structural and functional cardiac remodeling during healthy aging assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Lumos: Software for Multi-level Multi-reader Comparison of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Late Gadolinium Enhancement Scar Quantification.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Shaping Quality in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: A Comparative Study of Segmentation Approaches by Trainees and Experts.CJC open · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the Truncated Cone-Rhomboid Pyramid Formula for Simplified Right Ventricular Quantification: A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of manual and artificial intelligence based quantification of myocardial strain by feature tracking-a cardiovascular MR study in health and disease.European radiology · 2024Article
- Introduction of a cascaded segmentation pipeline for parametric T1 mapping in cardiovascular magnetic resonance to improve segmentation performance.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Multilevel comparison of deep learning models for function quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: On the redundancy of architectural variations.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard for cardiac function assessment. Quantification of clinical results (CR) requires precise segmentation. Clinicians statistically compare CRs to ensure reproducibility. Convolutional Neural Network developers compare their results via metrics. Aim: Introducing software capable of automatic multilevel comparison. A multilevel analysis covering segmentations and CRs builds on a generic software backend. Metrics and CRs are calculated with geometric accuracy. Segmentations and CRs are connected to track errors and their effects. An interactive GUI makes the software accessible to different users. The software's multilevel comparison was tested on a use case based on cardiac function assessment. The software shows good reader agreement in CRs and segmentation metrics (Dice > 90%). Decomposing differences by cardiac position revealed excellent agreement in midventricular slices: > 90% but poorer segmentations in apical (> 71%) and basal slices (> 74%). Further decomposition by contour type locates the largest millilitre differences in the basal right cavity (> 3 ml). Visual inspection shows these differences being caused by different basal slice choices. The software illuminated reader differences on several levels. Producing spreadsheets and figures concerning metric values and CR differences was automated. A multilevel reader comparison is feasible and extendable to other cardiac structures in the future.
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.