ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and performance evaluation of fully automated deep learning-based models for myocardial segmentation on T1 mapping MRI data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop a deep learning-based model capable of segmenting the left ventricular (LV) myocardium on native T1 maps from cardiac MRI in both long-axis and short-axis orientations. Models were trained on native myocardial T1 maps from 50 healthy volunteers and 75 patients using manual segmentation as the reference standard. Based on a U-Net architecture, we systematically optimized the model design using two different training metrics (Sørensen-Dice coefficient = DSC and Intersection-over-Union = IOU), two different activation functions (ReLU and LeakyReLU) and various numbers of training epochs. Training with DSC metric and a ReLU activation function over 35 epochs achieved the highest overall performance (mean error in T1 10.6 ± 17.9 ms, mean DSC 0.88 ± 0.07). Limits of agreement between model results and ground truth were from -35.5 to + 36.1 ms. This was superior to the agreement between two human raters (-34.7 to + 59.1 ms). Segmentation was as accurate for long-axis views (mean error T1: 6.77 ± 8.3 ms, mean DSC: 0.89 ± 0.03) as for short-axis images (mean error ΔT1: 11.6 ± 19.7 ms, mean DSC: 0.88 ± 0.08). Fully automated segmentation and quantitative analysis of native myocardial T1 maps is possible in both long-axis and short-axis orientations with very high accuracy.
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.