ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Automated cardiovascular MR myocardial scar quantification with unsupervised domain adaptation.
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.
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.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Arrhythmia-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Atrial Fibrillation: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Progress in the Clinical Application of Artificial Intelligence for Left Ventricle Analysis in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.