ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence-deep learning-based cine short-axis segmentation and manual post-processing for left ventricular function and structure in cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
Background: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the reference standard for evaluating left ventricular (LV) function and structure. Manual post-processing is time-consuming, operator-dependent, and limited in reproducibility. Deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI-DL) offers automated image segmentation with expert-level accuracy, but requires clinical validation against manual analysis. This study aimed to directly compare two AI-DL segmentation strategies-simplified (trabeculae and papillary muscles included in blood pool) and standard (included in myocardium)-with manual analysis to determine which approach yields superior clinical agreement. Methods: We retrospectively studied 104 patients who underwent CMR. Using both AI-DL (simplified/standard) methods and traditional manual post-processing software, we quantified LV parameters including ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume and index (EDV/EDVI), end-systolic volume and index (ESV/ESVI), stroke volume and index (SV/SI), cardiac output and index (CO/CI), and end-diastolic LV-mass and index (M/MI). Analysis time, correlation, and agreement with manual results were compared. Results: AI-DL markedly reduced analysis time compared with manual post-processing following standard method (median 50.0 Conclusions: AI-DL enables rapid and reliable quantification of LV function and structure in CMR. Although both simplified and standard methods show strong agreement with manual analysis, the standard method provides better agreement and narrower limits of difference, making it more clinically acceptable. These findings highlight the potential of AI-DL as a practical tool for routine cardiac functional assessment.
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.