ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Development and validation of AI-derived segmentation of four-chamber cine cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05114785 (PReserved Ejection Fraction Evaluation and Recognition by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
PReserved Ejection Fraction Evaluation and Recognition by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence-deep learning-based cine short-axis segmentation and manual post-processing for left ventricular function and structure in cardiac magnetic resonance.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of a Cardiac Magnetic Resonance-Derived Left Atrioventricular Coupling Index From Routine Cine Images in Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Multicenter Study.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- From Automated ECG Interpretation to Multimodal Cardiovascular Intelligence: The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Myocardial Viability and Ischaemia in Chronic Total Occlusion.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Reliability of Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT 4.1, DeepSeek V3, and Claude Opus 4 in generating standardized CMR protocols.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Curriculum check, 2025-equipping radiology residents for AI challenges of tomorrow.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Deep learning for automated segmentation of central cartilage tumors on MRI.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Performance in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Strain Analysis for Aortic Stenosis: Validation with Echocardiography and Healthy Controls.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging markers of ageing: a multi-centre, cross-sectional cohort study.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Segmentation-Free Estimation of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Using 3D CNN Is Reliable and Improves as Multiple Cardiac MRI Cine Orientations Are Combined.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Automated Quantification of Simple and Complex Aortic Flow Using 2D Phase Contrast MRI.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Current Landscape, Clinical Impact, and Future Directions.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in the four-chamber plane offers comprehensive insight into the volumetrics of the heart. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model of time-resolved segmentation using the four-chamber cine.
methodsA fully automated deep learning algorithm was trained using retrospective multicentre and multivendor data of 814 subjects. Validation, reproducibility, and mortality prediction were evaluated on an independent cohort of 101 subjects.
resultsThe mean age of the validation cohort was 54 years, and 66 (65%) were males. Left and right heart parameters demonstrated strong correlations between automated and manual analysis, with a ρ of 0.91-0.98 and 0.89-0.98, respectively, with minimal bias. All AI four-chamber volumetrics in repeatability analysis demonstrated high correlation (ρ = 0.99-1.00) and no bias. Automated four-chamber analysis underestimated both left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes compared to ground-truth short-axis cine analysis. Two correction factors for LV and RV four-chamber analysis were proposed based on systematic bias. After applying the correction factors, a strong correlation and minimal bias for LV volumetrics were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 6.75 years, 16 patients died. On stepwise multivariable analysis, left atrial ejection fraction demonstrated an independent association with death in both manual (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.003) and AI analyses (HR = 0.96, p < 0.001).
conclusionFully automated four-chamber CMR is feasible, reproducible, and has the same real-world prognostic value as manual analysis. LV volumes by four-chamber segmentation were comparable to short-axis volumetric assessment. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05114785. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Integrating fully automated AI in CMR promises to revolutionise clinical cardiac assessment, offering efficient, accurate, and prognostically valuable insights for improved patient care and outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Four-chamber cine sequences remain one of the most informative acquisitions in CMR examination. • This deep learning-based, time-resolved, fully automated four-chamber volumetric, functional, and deformation analysis solution. • LV and RV were underestimated by four-chamber analysis compared to ground truth short-axis segmentation. • Correction bias for both LV and RV volumes by four-chamber segmentation, minimises the systematic bias.
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.