ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2024
Deep learning model for intravascular ultrasound image segmentation with temporal consistency.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fusing photoacoustic microscopy and ultrasound imaging: an artificial intelligence strategy for vessel enhancement in interventional guidance.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study was conducted to develop and validate a deep learning model for delineating intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) images of coronary arteries.Using a total of 1240 40-MHz IVUS pullbacks with 191,407 frames, the model for lumen and external elastic membrane (EEM) segmentation was developed. Both frame- and vessel-level performances and clinical impact of the model on 3-year cardiovascular events were evaluated in the independent data sets. In the test set, the Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) were 0.966 ± 0.025 and 0.982 ± 0.017 for the lumen and EEM, respectively. Even at sites of extensive attenuation, the frame-level performance was excellent (DSCs > 0.96 for the lumen and EEM). The model (vs. the expert) showed a better temporal consistency for contouring the EEM. The agreement between the model- vs. the expert-derived cross-sectional and volumetric measurements was excellent in the independent retrospective cohort (all, intra-class coefficients > 0.94). The model-derived percent atheroma volume > 52.5% (area under curve 0.70, sensitivity 71% and specificity 67%) and plaque burden at the minimal lumen area site (area under curve 0.72, sensitivity 72% and specificity 66%) best predicted 3-year cardiac death and nonculprit-related target vessel revascularization, respectively. In the stented segment, the DSCs > 0.96 for contouring lumen and EEM were achieved. Applied to the 60-MHz IVUS images, the DSCs were > 0.97. In the external cohort with 45-MHz IVUS, the DSCs were > 0.96. The deep learning model accurately delineated vascular geometry, which may be cost-saving and support clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39190112What 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.