ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2026
Mind the Gap: Human and AI Uncertainties in Cardiac MRI Segmentation.
Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study conducts quantitative and qualitative analyses to investigate the relationship between human-annotated and AI-derived uncertainty in cardiac MRI segmentation, aiming to enhance the reliability of AI-based cardiac MRI segmentation models and foster better human-AI collaboration.
methodsThe CMRI dataset used in the experiments consists of 483 scans, each with two types of labels: an annotated segmentation mask and an uncertainty score per CMRI slice, both provided by clinicians. First, the AI-derived uncertainty estimated by the fuzzy-based algorithm is utilized to indicate the quality of segmentation. Multiple levels of uncertainties are derived from the method, including class-wise, slice-wise, subject-wise, etc. Subsequently, they are compared to the human-annotated uncertainty scores. Finally, qualitative analyses are conducted with clinicians to investigate all uncertainty measures potentially impacting real clinical applications.
resultsExperimental results show a strong inverse correlation between AI-derived uncertainty and Dice score, a standard metric for segmentation quality, indicating that lower uncertainty predicts higher segmentation quality. Additionally, it is found that human-annotated uncertainty coincides with AI-derived uncertainty for some anatomical structures (e.g., papillary muscle). However, high human-annotated uncertainty does not necessarily correlate with low AI segmentation quality, and there is no obvious association between human-annotated uncertainty and the size of the segmented structure. Concluded from qualitative analysis with clinicians, humans are better at utilizing prior knowledge (e.g. cardiac structural and contextual information) for uncertainty scoring, while the current AI method lacks this capability and is mainly data-driven for decision-making and uncertainty estimation.
conclusionAI-derived uncertainty could be utilized as quality control for CMRI segmentation. Humans utilize structural and contextual information to formulate uncertainty, while AI models currently lack this capability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41941100What 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.