Key result
Fine-tuned TransUNet improves cross-center coronary CCTA segmentation over 3D U-Net to a ~0.79 Dice score.
Why the study?
Manual coronary artery segmentation on CCTA is time-consuming, and automated models may lose accuracy when applied across centers with different scanners and protocols. This study evaluated how well automated segmentation models transfer across centers with minimal local adaptation.
Does a Transformer-based architecture (TransUNet) with minimal local adaptation (~30-37 manually annotated scans) improve cross-center coronary artery segmentation accuracy on CCTA compared to a conventional 3D U-Net and direct transfer?
Observational (n=1,187)
Yes
Does a Transformer-based architecture (TransUNet) with minimal local adaptation (~30-37 manually annotated scans) improve cross-center coronary artery segmentation accuracy on CCTA compared to a conventional 3D U-Net and direct transfer?
Fine-tuning deep learning models—particularly Transformer-based architectures (TransUNet)—with approximately 30 manually annotated CCTA scans per center restores reliable cross-center coronary artery segmentation across different scanners and protocols.
Background Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) enables non-invasive assessment of coronary artery disease. Quantitative CCTA analyses, including plaque and radiomics-based biomarkers, require accurate coronary artery segmentation. However, manual segmentation is time-consuming and limits large multi-center studies. Automated models often perform well only on data acquired with similar scanners and protocols and may lose accuracy when applied across centers. We therefore tested how well segmentation models transfer between centers with minimal local adaptation effort. Methods Two deep learning models—a conventional 3D convolutional neural network (CNN: 3D U-Net) and a Transformer-based architecture (TransUNet)—were first trained on a large public CCTA dataset (n=1000) and internally validated. The pre-trained models were then applied to two independents external CCTA cohorts (total n=187, Center A= 93, and Center B= 94) acquired with different scanners and protocols (Table 1). Performance was evaluated under two conditions: (1) direct transfer, where models were applied without center-specific retraining; (2) minimal adaptation, where a small subset per center (30–37 manually segmented cases; 80/20 train/validation) was used for fine-tuning. Fine-tuned models were evaluated on held-out annotated scans and subsequently used to segment the remaining cases in each cohort. Results On the original public test set, both models showed similar baseline performance (Dice 0.767±0.066 for 3D U-Net; 0.764±0.055 for TransUNet, Table 2. With direct transfer to external cohorts, accuracy declined substantially (Dice 0.45–0.63), reflecting limited cross-center generalizability After fine-tuning using ~34 local annotations, segmentation performance improved markedly at both centers. TransUNet achieved higher Dice scores than 3D U-Net (Center A: 0.785±0.043 vs 0.749±0.077, Center B: 0.732±0.069 vs 0.701±0.130;) and higher precision, while recall remained high (0.83–0.91). Conclusions Approximately 30 manually annotated CCTA scans per center were sufficient to restore reliable coronary artery segmentation despite substantial protocol differences. Transformer-based segmentation provided higher precision and more consistent performance than a conventional 3D CNN. These findings support scalable multi-center quantitative CCTA analysis with limited additional manual effort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alinezhad et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) (n=1,187). Transformer-based deep learning segmentation (TransUNet) with minimal local fine-tuning (~30-37 scans) vs. Conventional 3D convolutional neural network (3D U-Net) and direct transfer without retraining was evaluated on Coronary artery segmentation accuracy (Dice similarity coefficient). Fine-tuning TransUNet with ~34 local CCTA scans outperformed 3D U-Net for cross-center coronary segmentation (Dice 0.785 vs 0.749 at Center A; 0.732 vs 0.701 at Center B).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: