Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39143405›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024

Automated cardiovascular MR myocardial scar quantification with unsupervised domain adaptation.

Richard Crawley, Sina Amirrajab, Didier Lustermans, Robert J Holtackers, Sven Plein, Mitko Veta, Marcel Breeuwer, Amedeo Chiribiri, Cian M Scannell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial-intelligence-based feature mapping of native oxygenation-sensitive cardiovascular magnetic resonance images for classifying cardiomyopathies.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Richard CrawleySchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Sina AmirrajabDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Didier LustermansDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Robert J HoltackersCardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Sven PleinSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Mitko VetaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Marcel BreeuwerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Amedeo ChiribiriSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Cian M ScannellSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. cian.scannell@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9240-793X

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantification of myocardial scar from late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images can be facilitated by automated artificial intelligence (AI)-based analysis. However, AI models are susceptible to domain shifts in which the model performance is degraded when applied to data with different characteristics than the original training data. In this study, CycleGAN models were trained to translate local hospital data to the appearance of a public LGE CMR dataset. After domain adaptation, an AI scar quantification pipeline including myocardium segmentation, scar segmentation, and computation of scar burden, previously developed on the public dataset, was evaluated on an external test set including 44 patients clinically assessed for ischemic scar. The mean ± standard deviation Dice similarity coefficients between the manual and AI-predicted segmentations in all patients were similar to those previously reported: 0.76 ± 0.05 for myocardium and 0.75 ± 0.32 for scar, 0.41 ± 0.12 for scar in scans with pathological findings. Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias in scar burden percentage of -0.62% with limits of agreement from -8.4% to 7.17%. These results show the feasibility of deploying AI models, trained with public data, for LGE CMR quantification on local clinical data using unsupervised CycleGAN-based domain adaptation. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our study demonstrated the possibility of using AI models trained from public databases to be applied to patient data acquired at a specific institution with different acquisition settings, without additional manual labor to obtain further training labels.

Indexed as

CicatrixMagnetic Resonance ImagingAgedArtificial IntelligenceContrast MediaFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedContrast MediaArtificial intelligenceCardiovascular magnetic resonanceImage processing (computer assisted)Late gadolinium enhancementMyocardium

Identifiers

PMID39143405
PMCPMC11324636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.