ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Assessing the robustness of an artificial intelligence segmentation model for quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging across cardiac phenotypes.
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. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: A Giant Step in Personalized Medicine?Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo introduce an artificial intelligence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance segmentation algorithm (Nick) for automated quantification of function and parametric mapping across cardiac phenotypes reflecting clinical routine.
methodsNick was compared to manual gold standard (GS) segmentations in 359 multi-centre cases at 1.5T and 3T, consisting of 104 healthy individuals and 255 diseased patients with various cardiac phenotypes. Left and right ventricular (LV, RV) volumes and LV mass (LVM) were derived from short-axis segmentations. For parametric mapping, the LV myocardium was segmented to quantify T1 and T2 relaxation times. Statistical analysis comprised mean differences, correlation coefficients (R²), Bland-Altman analysis, tolerance range assessments, and paired boxplots. The number of slices and contours requiring manual correction was estimated based on slice-level differences.
resultsNick demonstrated high agreement with the GS for LV and RV volume estimations (R²≥0.93) and LVM quantification (R²=0.86). For the ejection fractions, correlations were slightly lower (R²=0.85/0.72 for LV/RV) with small mean differences (+ 1.14%/-2.48% for LV/RV). T1 and T2 mapping values showed excellent agreement with manual reference values (R²≥0.92) and minimal biases (-1.64/0.14 ms for T1/T2). Nick underestimated LV volumes at end-diastole (-4.48 ml) and end-systole (-3.28 ml) as well as the RV end-diastolic volume (-5.14 ml) and stroke volume (-6.75 ml). Nonetheless, tolerance testing for mean deviations revealed clinically acceptable biases for all comparisons, and less than two slices per case required correction on average.
conclusionComparison to expert segmentations revealed robust performance of Nick in routine clinical cases with variable pathology, supporting its future integration into clinical workflows.
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.