ArticlePloS one2025
Investigating methods to enhance interpretability and performance in cardiac MRI for myocardial scarring diagnosis using convolutional neural network classification and One Match.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) classification of myocardial scarring in cardiac MRI is often hindered by limited explainability, particularly with convolutional neural networks (CNNs). To address this, we developed One Match (OM), an algorithm that builds on template matching to improve on both the explainability and performance of ML myocardial scaring classification. By incorporating OM, we aim to foster trust in AI models for medical diagnostics and demonstrate that improved interpretability does not have to compromise classification accuracy. Using a cardiac MRI dataset from 279 patients, this study evaluates One Match, which classifies myocardial scarring in images by matching each image to a set of labeled template images. It uses the highest correlation score from these matches for classification and is compared to a traditional sequential CNN. Enhancements such as autodidactic enhancement (AE) and patient-level classifications (PLCs) were applied to improve the predictive accuracy of both methods. Results are reported as follows: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1-score. The highest classification performance was observed with the OM algorithm when enhanced by both AE and PLCs, 95.3% accuracy, 92.3% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity, 92.3% precision, and 92.3% F1-score, marking a significant improvement over the base configurations. AE alone had a positive impact on OM increasing accuracy from 89.0% to 93.2%, but decreased the accuracy of the CNN from 85.3% to 82.9%. In contrast, PLCs improved accuracy for both the CNN and OM, raising the CNN's accuracy by 4.2% and OM's by 7.4%. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of OM in classifying myocardial scars, particularly when enhanced with AE and PLCs. The interpretability of OM also enabled the examination of misclassifications, providing insights that could accelerate development and foster greater trust among clinical stakeholders.
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.