ArticleScientific reports2026
Towards fully automated synthetic ECV quantification: an open-access machine learning-based approach for fast blood draw-free CMR.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracellular volume (ECV) quantification involves time-consuming multi-step post-processing and a blood draw for hematocrit analysis. This study aimed to develop a fully automated blood draw-free, machine learning-based approach for synthetic ECV assessment for non-invasive assessment of diffuse myocardial fibrosis. We retrospectively evaluated a large clinical cohort of 1092 patients who underwent CMR and ECV measurement at 1.5T or 3T. Participants were divided into training (n = 767) and validation (n = 325) cohorts. Manual contouring of T1 maps was used to iteratively develop a neural network segmentation model, which was then applied for automated analysis. Fully-automated synthetic ECV was calculated using validated sex- and field strength-specific models. Agreement was assessed using Student's t-test, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and classification analysis. Fully-automated synthetic ECV showed strong correlation with conventional ECV (r = 0.79, p < 0.001), with no significant differences (26.9% ± 4.9% vs. 27.3% ± 6.4%, p = 0.056). Bland-Altman analysis indicated minimal mean difference of 0.4% with moderate limits of agreement (LoA) spanning - 7.24% to + 8.07%, with good agreement for values of up to 35% (mean difference 0.1%, LoA: - 5.38% to + 5.23%). Fully automated synthetic ECV offers a blood-free proof-of-concept for large-scale post-processing, supporting consistent and efficient assessment of myocardial fibrosis in research settings, pending further validation for clinical use at higher ECV ranges.
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.