Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the German National Cohort: Automated Segmentation of Short-Axis Cine Images and Post-Processing Quality Control
Full, P. M.; Schirrmeister, R. T.; Hein, M.; Russe, M. F.; Reisert, M.; Ammann, C.; Greiser, K. H.; Niendorf, T.; Pischon, T.; Schulz-Menger, J.; Maier-Hein, K. H.; Bamberg, F.; Rospleszcz, S.; Schlett, C. L.; Schuppert, C.
Show abstract
PurposeTo develop a segmentation and quality control pipeline for short-axis cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) cine images from the prospective, multi-center German National Cohort (NAKO). Materials and MethodsA deep learning model for semantic segmentation, based on the nnU-Net architecture, was applied to full-cycle short-axis cine images from 29,908 baseline participants. The primary objective was to determine data on structure and function for both ventricles (LV, RV), including end diastolic volumes (EDV), end systolic volumes (ESV), and LV myocardial mass. Quality control measures included a visual assessment of outliers in morphofunctional parameters, inter- and intra-ventricular phase differences, and LV time-volume curves (TVC). These were adjudicated using a five-point rating scale, ranging from five (excellent) to one (non-diagnostic), with ratings of three or lower subject to exclusion. The predictive value of outlier criteria for inclusion and exclusion was analyzed using receiver operating characteristics. ResultsThe segmentation model generated complete data for 29,609 participants (incomplete in 1.0%) and 5,082 cases (17.0 %) were visually assessed. Quality assurance yielded a sample of 26,899 participants with excellent or good quality (89.9%; exclusion of 1,875 participants due to image quality issues and 835 cases due to segmentation quality issues). TVC was the strongest single discriminator between included and excluded participants (AUC: 0.684). Of the two-category combinations, the pairing of TVC and phases provided the greatest improvement over TVC alone (AUC difference: 0.044; p<0.001). The best performance was observed when all three categories were combined (AUC: 0.748). Extending the quality-controlled sample to include acceptable quality ratings, a total of 28,413 (95.0%) participants were available. ConclusionThe implemented pipeline facilitated the automated segmentation of an extensive CMR dataset, integrating quality control measures. This methodology ensures that ensuing quantitative analyses are conducted with a diminished risk of bias.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Deep Learning Based Cardiac Cine Segmentation – Transfer Learning Application to 7T Ultrahigh-Field MRI 95%
- Highly Accelerated Vessel-Selective Arterial Spin Labelling Angiography using Sparsity and Smoothness Constraints 94%
- Image- vs. histogram-based considerations in semantic segmentation of pulmonary hyperpolarized gas images 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reproducibility of 4D Flow MRI-based Personalized Cardiovascular Models; Inter-sequence, Intra-observer, and Inter-observer variability 97%
- Reduced stress perfusion in myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries 94%
- Cardiac MRI in common marmosets revealing age-dependency of cardiac function 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical evaluation of the Multimapping technique for simultaneous myocardial T1 and T2 mapping 97%
- Fairness in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Assessing sex and racial bias in deep learning-based segmentation 97%
- DeepStrain: A Deep Learning Workflow for the Automated Characterization of Cardiac Mechanics 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Large Language Model-Generated Brain MRI Protocols: Performance of GPT4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B 93%
- Impact of Non-Contrast Enhanced Imaging Input Sequences on the Generation of Virtual Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI Scans using Neural Networks 92%
- Deep-learning-based white matter lesion volume in CT is associated with outcome after acute ischemic stroke 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.