ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Lightweight preprocessing and template matching facilitate streamlined ischemic myocardial scar classification.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI Applied to Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Precision Medicine in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Ischemic myocardial scarring (IMS) is a common outcome of coronary artery disease that potentially leads to lethal arrythmias and heart failure. Late-gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging scans have served as the diagnostic bedrock for IMS, with recent advancements in machine learning enabling enhanced scar classification. However, the trade-off for these improvements is intensive computational and time demands. As a solution, we propose a combination of lightweight preprocessing (LWP) and template matching (TM) to streamline IMS classification. Approach: CMR images from 279 patients (151 IMS, 128 control) were classified for IMS presence using two convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and TM, both with and without LWP. Evaluation metrics included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and processing time. External testing dataset analysis encompassed patient-level classifications (PLCs) and a CNN versus TM classification comparison (CVTCC). Results: LWP enhanced the speed of both CNNs (4.9x) and TM (21.9x). Furthermore, in the absence of LWP, TM outpaced CNNs by over 10x, while with LWP, TM was more than 100x faster. Additionally, TM performed similarly to the CNNs in accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, and AUROC, with PLCs demonstrating improvements across all five metrics. Moreover, the CVTCC revealed a substantial 90.9% agreement. Conclusions: Our results highlight the effectiveness of LWP and TM in streamlining IMS classification. Anticipated enhancements to LWP's region of interest (ROI) isolation and TM's ROI targeting are expected to boost accuracy, positioning them as a potential alternative to CNNs for IMS classification, supporting the need for further research.
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.