ArticleEwha medical journal2025
Comparative evaluation of deep learning architectures, including UNet, TransUNet, and MIST, for left atrium segmentation in cardiac computed tomography of congenital heart diseases.
Article in Ewha medical journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study compares 3 deep learning models (UNet, TransUNet, and MIST) for left atrium (LA) segmentation of cardiac computed tomography (CT) images from patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). It investigates how architectural variations in the MIST model, such as spatial squeeze-and-excitation attention, impact Dice score and HD95. Methods: We analyzed 108 publicly available, de-identified CT volumes from the ImageCHD dataset. Volumes underwent resampling, intensity normalization, and data augmentation. UNet, TransUNet, and MIST models were trained using 80% of 97 cases, with the remaining 20% employed for validation. Eleven cases were reserved for testing. Performance was evaluated using the Dice score (measuring overlap accuracy) and HD95 (reflecting boundary accuracy). Statistical comparisons were performed via one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: MIST achieved the highest mean Dice score (0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.81), significantly outperforming TransUNet (0.53; P<0.001) and UNet (0.49; P<0.001). Regarding HD95, TransUNet (9.09 mm) and MIST (5.77 mm) similarly outperformed UNet (27.49 mm; P<0.0001). In ablation experiments, the inclusion of spatial attention did not further enhance the MIST model's performance, suggesting redundancy with existing attention mechanisms. However, the integration of multi-scale features and refined skip connections consistently improved segmentation accuracy and boundary delineation. Conclusion: MIST demonstrated superior LA segmentation, highlighting the benefits of its integrated multi-scale features and optimized architecture. Nevertheless, its computational overhead complicates practical clinical deployment. Our findings underscore the value of advanced hybrid models in cardiac imaging, providing improved reliability for CHD evaluation. Future studies should balance segmentation accuracy with feasible clinical implementation.
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.