ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Deep Learning Architectures for Cardiac Contour Segmentation in Catheterization Radiographs.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Accurate cardiac image segmentation is essential for quantitative assessment of cardiac anatomy and function. Manual segmentation, while considered the reference standard, is time-consuming and subject to inter- and intra-observer variability. Deep learning (DL) models, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have shown promise for automating this process. Among these, U-Net and DeepLabV3 are widely used architectures; however, direct comparisons between them for cardiac silhouette segmentation on cardiac catheterization radiographs are limited. Methods A supervised DL study was conducted using 1717 anonymized chest radiographs during cardiac catheterization with corresponding binary segmentation masks of the cardiac silhouette. Images were resized to 256 × 256 pixels, normalized, and divided into training (70%), validation (20%), and test (10%) sets. Two segmentation models were implemented: (1) a modified U-Net with batch normalization and dropout regularization, and (2) a DeepLabV3 network with a MobileNetV2 backbone pretrained on ImageNet. Both models were trained using the Adam optimizer and binary cross-entropy loss with early stopping based on validation performance. Segmentation performance was evaluated on the test set using the Dice similarity coefficient, Intersection over Union (IoU), and pixel accuracy. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and effect sizes were calculated using the rank-biserial correlation (RBC). Results U-Net consistently outperformed DeepLabV3 across all evaluation metrics. U-Net achieved a mean Dice of 0.9454, IoU of 0.8980, and pixel accuracy of 0.9844, compared to DeepLabV3 (Dice = 0.9321, IoU = 0.8742, pixel accuracy = 0.9806). These differences were statistically significant (Dice: W = 2849.0, p < 1 × 10⁻¹², RBC = 0.617; IoU: W = 2810.0, p < 1 × 10⁻¹², RBC = 0.622; pixel accuracy: W = 2768.5, p < 1 × 10⁻¹², RBC = 0.628), indicating large effect sizes favoring U-Net. Conclusions U-Net achieved significantly higher segmentation accuracy than DeepLabV3 for cardiac silhouette segmentation on catheterization radiographs. Its encoder-decoder architecture with skip connections enabled superior boundary delineation, reaffirming U-Net as a strong baseline for medical image segmentation. Automated cardiac silhouette segmentation may enhance the efficiency and reproducibility of cardiothoracic ratio estimation, cardiomegaly detection, and longitudinal cardiac monitoring. Future studies should focus on multi-institutional validation, chamber-level segmentation, and benchmarking against transformer-based architectures to advance clinical integration.
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.