SynthesisPloS one2026
Deep learning for cardiac CT segmentation for congenital heart disease: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
purposeDeep Learning (DL) has transformed cardiac image segmentation, yet its application to congenital heart disease (CHD) remains underexplored, with no prior systematic review in this emerging domain. This review evaluates current DL approaches for CHD CT segmentation, identifies best performing model architectures, assesses quality of reporting and highlights challenges for clinical implementation. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, six databases: PubMed, IEEE Xplore, MDPI, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched (2004-2025). Extracted characteristics include source of dataset, ground truth labelling approach, DL architecture and evaluation methods. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical imaging (CLAIM).
results14 studies met the inclusion criteria, reflecting the emergence of this research area. The UNet architecture and its variants dominated (8 studies). The highest reported Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) for cardiac structures segmentation was achieved utilising an advanced hybrid ResNet-based model (Aorta, DSC = 0.945). Well documented areas include the training approach (12 studies) and model description (all). Only two studies performed external validation, and two assessed inter- and intra-rater variability. No studies reported sample size determination and handing of missing data. Small vascular structures consistently underperformed compared to whole heart segmentation.
conclusionDeep learning models show strong potential for CHD CT segmentation but remain limited by small datasets, inconsistent reporting and lack of clinical evaluation. Advancing this field requires multidisciplinary collaboration, standardised reporting, and integration of clinical co- design. As the first comprehensive review in this area, we provide a strong baseline for evaluating future studies.
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.