ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Multilevel comparison of deep learning models for function quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: On the redundancy of architectural variations.
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.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of vendor artificial intelligence solutions for automated post-processing of short-axis cine images in cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the robustness of an artificial intelligence segmentation model for quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging across cardiac phenotypes.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Pushing the limits of cardiac MRI: deep-learning based real-time cine imaging in free breathing vs breath hold.European radiology · 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
- Intra- and inter-field strength reproducibility of deep-learning based real-time cardiac MRI cine sequences with breath hold and in free breathing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Shaping Quality in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: A Comparative Study of Segmentation Approaches by Trainees and Experts.CJC open · 2025Article
- Article
- Reproducibility of late gadolinium enhancement quantification techniques in ischemic and non-ischemic heart diseases (ReLate study).Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Accelerated Cardiac MRI with Deep Learning-based Image Reconstruction for Cine Imaging.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.