Why the study?
The study aimed to develop and evaluate deep learning models for automatic volumetric segmentation of LV myocardium and ischaemic scar and automated quantification of scar burden from LGE-CMR.
Do deep learning models accurately perform automatic volumetric segmentation of LV myocardium and ischemic scar from LGE-CMR compared to manual segmentation?
Do deep learning models accurately perform automatic volumetric segmentation of LV myocardium and ischemic scar from LGE-CMR compared to manual segmentation?
Deep learning models, specifically Cascaded U-Net, demonstrate moderate to strong agreement with manual segmentation for quantifying LV mass and ischemic scar burden from LGE-CMR.
May support automated LGE-CMR research workflows; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
AIMS: This study details application of deep learning for automatic volumetric segmentation of left ventricular (LV) myocardium and scar and automated quantification of myocardial ischaemic scar burden from late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (LGE-CMR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 501 images and manual segmentations of short-axis LGE-CMR from over 20 multinational sites, from which 377 studies were used for training and 124 studies from unique participants for internal validation. A third test set of 52 images was used for external evaluation. Three models, U-Net, Cascaded U-Net, and U-Net++, were trained with a novel adaptive weighted categorical cross-entropy loss function. Model performance was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) for LV mass and per cent myocardial scar burden. Cascaded U-Net was found to be the best model for the quantification of LV mass and scar percentage. The model exhibited a mean difference of -5 ± 23 g for LV mass, -0.4 ± 11.2 g for scar mass, and -0.8 ± 7% for per cent scar. CCC were 0.87, 0.77, and 0.78 for LV mass, scar mass, and per cent scar burden, respectively, in the internal validation set and 0.75, 0.71, and 0.69, respectively, in the external test set. For segmental scar mass, CCC was 0.74 for apical scar, 0.91 for mid-ventricular scar, and 0.73 for basal scar, demonstrating moderate to strong agreement. CONCLUSION: We successfully trained a convolutional neural network for volumetric segmentation and analysis of LV scar burden from LGE-CMR images in a large, multinational cohort of participants with ischaemic scar.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jani et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: