Key result
A new automatic method for scar segmentation yielded the highest Dice score and lowest volume difference compared to FWHM and n SD methods against manual ground truth.
Why the study?
To validate the accuracy of a new automatic method for scar segmentation and compare its performance with two frequently used segmentation algorithms.
Does a new automatic segmentation method improve accuracy compared to FWHM and n SD methods in detecting myocardial infarction on LGE MRI?
Does a new automatic segmentation method improve accuracy compared to FWHM and n SD methods in detecting myocardial infarction on LGE MRI?
A new automatic segmentation method for LGE MRI provides highly reproducible and objective scar quantification without manual intervention.
New automatic scar segmentation method validated in small LGE-CMR cohort; leaves open clinical adoption pending larger prospective studies.
Objective: The aim of this study was to validate the accuracy of a new automatic method for scar segmentation and compare its performance with that of two other frequently used segmentation algorithms. Methods: Twenty-six late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance images of diseased hearts were segmented by the full width at half maximum (FWHM) method, the n standard deviations ( n SD) method, and our new automatic method. The results of the three methods were compared with the consensus ground truth obtained by manual segmentation of the ventricular boundaries. Results: Our automatic method yielded the highest Dice score and the lowest volume difference compared with the consensus ground truth segmentation. The n SD method produced large variations in the Dice score and the volume difference. The FWHM method yielded the lowest Dice score and the greatest volume difference compared with the automatic, 6SD, and 8SD methods, but resulted in less variation when different observers segmented the images. Conclusion: The automatic method introduced in this study is highly reproducible and objective. Because it requires no manual intervention, it may be useful for processing large datasets produced in clinical applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2020) studied Myocardial Infarction (n=26). New automatic method for scar segmentation vs. FWHM method and n SD method was evaluated on Dice score and volume difference compared with consensus ground truth. A new automatic method for scar segmentation yielded the highest Dice score and lowest volume difference compared to FWHM and n SD methods against manual ground truth.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: