ArticleJournal of imaging2023
Segmentation of 4D Flow MRI: Comparison between 3D Deep Learning and Velocity-Based Level Sets.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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.
- Ethical and Legal Concerns of Deepfake Technology in Biomedical Imaging: A Comprehensive Survey.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Automated 4D flow MRI pipeline for the quantification of advanced hemodynamic parameters in the left atrium.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Modeling Techniques and Boundary Conditions in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Analysis: Latest Developments in Simulation and Integration of Machine Learning and Data-Driven Approaches.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Automated segmentation of thoracic aortic lumen and vessel wall on three-dimensional bright- and black-blood magnetic resonance imaging using nnU-Net.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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A thoracic aortic aneurysm is an abnormal dilatation of the aorta that can progress and lead to rupture. The decision to conduct surgery is made by considering the maximum diameter, but it is now well known that this metric alone is not completely reliable. The advent of 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging has allowed for the calculation of new biomarkers for the study of aortic diseases, such as wall shear stress. However, the calculation of these biomarkers requires the precise segmentation of the aorta during all phases of the cardiac cycle. The objective of this work was to compare two different methods for automatically segmenting the thoracic aorta in the systolic phase using 4D flow MRI. The first method is based on a level set framework and uses the velocity field in addition to 3D phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging. The second method is a U-Net-like approach that is only applied to magnitude images from 4D flow MRI. The used dataset was composed of 36 exams from different patients, with ground truth data for the systolic phase of the cardiac cycle. The comparison was performed based on selected metrics, such as the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorf distance (HD), for the whole aorta and also three aortic regions. Wall shear stress was also assessed and the maximum wall shear stress values were used for comparison. The U-Net-based approach provided statistically better results for the 3D segmentation of the aorta, with a DSC of 0.92 ± 0.02 vs. 0.86 ± 0.5 and an HD of 21.49 ± 24.8 mm vs. 35.79 ± 31.33 mm for the whole aorta. The absolute difference between the wall shear stress and ground truth slightly favored the level set method, but not significantly (0.754 ± 1.07 Pa vs. 0.737 ± 0.79 Pa). The results showed that the deep learning-based method should be considered for the segmentation of all time steps in order to evaluate biomarkers based on 4D flow MRI.
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.