ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Interactive deep learning for myocardial scar segmentation using cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing myocardial infarction, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides a reliable metric for risk stratification and therapeutic planning. However, conventional segmentation methods are time-consuming and labor-intensive, with high inter-observer variability and inconsistent performance in routine clinical practice. This study sought to develop an interactive deep learning system for scar segmentation and quantification.
methodsThe framework was developed and evaluated using LGE-CMR images from 348 patients with chronic myocardial infarction (244 training, 51 validation, and 53 test). The model incorporates prompt-guided segmentation and leverages a vision foundation model adapted for medical imaging, integrated into a clinician-facing interface for real-time interaction, and automated quantification. Training used a composite loss function combining Dice overlap, voxel-wise cross-entropy, and Kullback-Leibler divergence against soft labels to address annotation uncertainty. Performance was evaluated on a held-out test set using expert manual annotations as the reference standard, with assessment of segmentation accuracy, repeatability, and agreement with the conventional full-width at half-maximum method (FWHM).
resultsThe framework achieved expert-level segmentation performance on the test set (Dice similarity coefficient = 0.74 ± 0.10; Hausdorff distance = 5.87 ± 6.79 mm) with a median scar mass error of 1.28 g (interquartile range [IQR] 0.74-2.34), corresponding to 1.4% (IQR 0.81-2.47) of left ventricular mass. Repeatability analysis (n = 41) demonstrated excellent agreement, with both inter- and intra-observer concordance correlation coefficients of 0.999 (compared with 0.737 and 0.952, respectively, for the conventional FWHM). Segmentation time was substantially reduced when using the interactive tool compared with the conventional workflow, averaging 65 ± 34 s per patient. Performance and repeatability remained high across the test set with differing levels of image quality.
conclusionThe proposed framework for scar segmentation with a human-in-the-loop design enables fast, accurate, and highly reproducible myocardial scar quantification from LGE-CMR. This may provide more consistent performance in routine clinical workflows.
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.