ArticleBasic research in cardiology2024
Deep learning segmentation model for quantification of infarct size in pigs with myocardial ischemia/reperfusion.
Article in Basic research in cardiology, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Infarct size (IS) is the most robust end point for evaluating the success of preclinical studies on cardioprotection. The gold standard for IS quantification in ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) experiments is triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining, typically done manually. This study aimed to determine if automation through deep learning segmentation is a time-saving and valid alternative to standard IS quantification. High-resolution images from TTC-stained, macroscopic heart slices were retrospectively collected from pig experiments (n = 390) with I/R without/with cardioprotection to cover a wide IS range. Existing IS data from pig experiments, quantified using a standard method of manual and subsequent digital labeling of film-scan annotations, were used as reference. To automate the evaluation process with the aim to be more objective and save time, a deep learning pipeline was implemented; the collected images (n = 3869) were pre-processed by cropping and labeled (image annotations). To ensure their usability as training data for a deep learning segmentation model, IS was quantified from image annotations and compared to IS quantified using the existing film-scan annotations. A supervised deep learning segmentation model based on dynamic U-Net architecture was developed and trained. The evaluation of the trained model was performed by fivefold cross-validation (n = 220 experiments) and testing on an independent test set (n = 170 experiments). Performance metrics (Dice similarity coefficient [DSC], pixel accuracy [ACC], average precision [mAP]) were calculated. IS was then quantified from predictions and compared to IS quantified from image annotations (linear regression, Pearson's r; analysis of covariance; Bland-Altman plots). Performance metrics near 1 indicated a strong model performance on cross-validated data (DSC: 0.90, ACC: 0.98, mAP: 0.90) and on the test set data (DSC: 0.89, ACC: 0.98, mAP: 0.93). IS quantified from predictions correlated well with IS quantified from image annotations in all data sets (cross-validation: r = 0.98; test data set: r = 0.95) and analysis of covariance identified no significant differences. The model reduced the IS quantification time per experiment from approximately 90 min to 20 s. The model was further tested on a preliminary test set from experiments in isolated, saline-perfused rat hearts with regional I/R without/with cardioprotection (n = 27). There was also no significant difference in IS between image annotations and predictions, but the performance on the test set data from rat hearts was lower (DSC: 0.66, ACC: 0.91, mAP: 0.65). IS quantification using a deep learning segmentation model is a valid and time-efficient alternative to manual and subsequent digital labeling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.