ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Validation of a deep learning approach for epicardial adipose tissue segmentation in computed tomography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2026. 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
The link between epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) and cardiovascular risk is well established, with EAT volume being strongly associated with inflammation, coronary artery disease (CAD) risk, and mortality. However, its EAT quantification is hindered by the time-consuming nature of manual EAT segmentation in cardiac computed tomography (CT). 300 non-contrast cardiac CT scans were collected and the pericardium was manually delineated. In a subset of this data (N = 30), manual delineation was repeated by the same operator and by a second operator. Two automatic methods were then used for pericardial segmentation: a commercially available tool, Siemens Cardiac Risk Assessment (CRA) software; and a deep learning solution based on a U-Net architecture trained exclusively with external public datasets (CardiacFat and OSIC). EAT segmentations were obtained through thresholding to [- 150,- 50] Hounsfield units. Pericardial and EAT segmentation performance was evaluated considering the segmentations by the first operator as reference. Statistical significance of differences for all metrics and segmentation methods was tested through Student t-tests. Pericardial segmentation intra-/interobserver variability was excellent, with the U-Net outperforming Siemens CRA (p < 0.0001). The intra- and interobserver agreement for EAT segmentation was lower with Dice Scores (DSC) of 0.862 and 0.775 respectively, while the U-Net and Siemens CRA obtained DSCs of 0.723 and 0.679 respectively. EAT volume quantification showed that the agreement between a human observer and the U-Net was better than that of two human observers (p = 0.0141), with a Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) of 0.896 and a bias of - 2.83 cm
Indexed as
Identifiers
41233698What 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.