ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2023
Segmentation of the aorta in systolic phase from 4D flow MRI: multi-atlas vs. deep learning.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer vision applications in vascular surgery: a systematic review and critical appraisal.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Automated 4D flow MRI pipeline for the quantification of advanced hemodynamic parameters in the left atrium.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Four-Dimensional Flow in Fontan Patients: Advanced Haemodynamic Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Synthetically trained convolutional neural networks for time-resolved aortic segmentation of four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn the management of the aortic aneurysm, 4D flow magnetic resonance Imaging provides valuable information for the computation of new biomarkers using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). However, accurate segmentation of the aorta is required. Thus, our objective is to evaluate the performance of two automatic segmentation methods on the calculation of aortic wall pressure.
methodsAutomatic segmentation of the aorta was performed with methods based on deep learning and multi-atlas using the systolic phase in the 4D flow MRI magnitude image of 36 patients. Using mesh morphing, isotopological meshes were generated, and CFD was performed to calculate the aortic wall pressure. Node-to-node comparisons of the pressure results were made to identify the most robust automatic method respect to the pressures obtained with a manually segmented model.
resultsDeep learning approach presented the best segmentation performance with a mean Dice similarity coefficient and a mean Hausdorff distance (HD) equal to 0.92+/- 0.02 and 21.02+/- 24.20 mm, respectively. At the global level HD is affected by the performance in the abdominal aorta. Locally, this distance decreases to 9.41+/- 3.45 and 5.82+/- 6.23 for the ascending and descending thoracic aorta, respectively. Moreover, with respect to the pressures from the manual segmentations, the differences in the pressures computed from deep learning were lower than those computed from multi-atlas method.
conclusionTo reduce biases in the calculation of aortic wall pressure, accurate segmentation is needed, particularly in regions with high blood flow velocities. Thus, the deep learning segmen-tation method should be preferred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36800143What 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.