ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2023
Calculation of left ventricular ejection fraction using an 8-layer residual U-Net with deep supervision based on cardiac CT angiography images versus echocardiography: a comparative study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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.
- Calculation of Ejection Fraction Using Cardiac Computed Tomography: Clinical Evolution, Reliability, and Technological Challenges-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- A robust and data-efficient deep learning model for cardiac assessment without segmentation.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Improved automatic segmentation of brain metastasis gross tumor volume in computed tomography images for radiotherapy: a position attention module for U-Net architecture.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Agreement of ejection fraction measured by coronary computed tomography (CT) and cardiac ultrasound in evaluating patients with chronic heart failure: an observational comparative study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate segmentation of the left ventricle (LV) is an important step in assessing cardiac function. Cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) has become an important means of clinical diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) because of its advantages of non-invasive, short examination time and low cost. In order to obtain the segmentation of LV in CCTA scans, we propose a deep learning method based on 8-layer residual U-Net with deep supervision. In this study we compared the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) calculated by deep learning (DL) method (AccuLV) from CCTA to LVEF by conventional two-dimensional echocardiography (EC). Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, and consecutive patients who had undergone CCTA and EC in our hospital from February 2021 to May 2021 were recruited. The current study included 180 patients who had undergone CCTA and EC. To obtain LVEF, we used an 8-layer residual U-Net with deep supervision to segment LV contours from CCTA images and compute LVEF (DL-LVEF). The EC and DL-LVEF measurements were compared. A 50% EC-LVEF cut-off value was used as a reference standard to assess the diagnostic performance of AccuLV in assessing LV function. Results: The overall mean EC-LVEF and DL-LVEF values were 64.0% (52.3%, 69.0%) and 73.0% (52.3%, 77.0%), respectively. Three patient groups were studied: (I) hypertensive patients, (II) postmenopausal women, and (III) diabetes. EC-LVEF and DL-LVEF were found to be positively correlated for all of the included patients (r=0.82, P<0.001), with the detailed results for the three groups as follows: hypertensive patients (r=0.77, P<0.001), postmenopausal women (r=0.92, P<0.001) and diabetes (r=0.88, P<0.001). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the DL method in predicting EC-LVEF <50% for all patients were 93.9%, 92.3%, and 94.3%, and for hypertensive patients were 95.4%, 93.8%, and 95.8%, for postmenopausal women were 87.0%, 100%, and 84.2%, for diabetes were 97.4%, 100%, and 96.6%. Conclusions: In comparison to echocardiography, which is commonly used in clinical setting, AccuLV may be a promising, fully automated tool for rapid and accurate quantification of LV function and thus for making reliable clinical decisions.
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.