Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37144061›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023

Multilevel comparison of deep learning models for function quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: On the redundancy of architectural variations.

Clemens Ammann, Thomas Hadler, Jan Gröschel, Christoph Kolbitsch, Jeanette Schulz-Menger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Clemens AmmannWorking Group on CMR, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, A cooperation between the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association and Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas HadlerWorking Group on CMR, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, A cooperation between the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association and Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jan GröschelWorking Group on CMR, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, A cooperation between the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association and Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christoph KolbitschPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Braunschweig and Berlin, Germany.
Jeanette Schulz-MengerWorking Group on CMR, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, A cooperation between the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association and Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Freie Universität Berlin · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHelios Hospital Berlin-Buch · DEPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cardiac function quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance requires precise contouring of the heart chambers. This time-consuming task is increasingly being addressed by a plethora of ever more complex deep learning methods. However, only a small fraction of these have made their way from academia into clinical practice. In the quality assessment and control of medical artificial intelligence, the opaque reasoning and associated distinctive errors of neural networks meet an extraordinarily low tolerance for failure. Aim: The aim of this study is a multilevel analysis and comparison of the performance of three popular convolutional neural network (CNN) models for cardiac function quantification. Methods: U-Net, FCN, and MultiResUNet were trained for the segmentation of the left and right ventricles on short-axis cine images of 119 patients from clinical routine. The training pipeline and hyperparameters were kept constant to isolate the influence of network architecture. CNN performance was evaluated against expert segmentations for 29 test cases on contour level and in terms of quantitative clinical parameters. Multilevel analysis included breakdown of results by slice position, as well as visualization of segmentation deviations and linkage of volume differences to segmentation metrics Results: All models showed strong correlation to the expert with respect to quantitative clinical parameters ( Conclusion: Modifications to CNN architecture were not critical to the quality of error for our dataset. Despite good overall agreement with the expert, errors accumulated in basal and apical slices for all models.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecardiac function quantificationcardiac image segmentationcardiovascular magnetic resonancedeep learningMRIquality control

Identifiers

PMID37144061
PMCPMC10151814
OpenAlexW4366290755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.