Back

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.

2025-05-21 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2025.05.20.25328013 medRxiv
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 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 4%
12.2%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 24%
7.1%
3
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
5
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
6
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
7
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
8
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
9
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
10
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
11
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
12
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
13
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
14
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Aperture Neuro
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
17
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.7%
18
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
19
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
20
Frontiers in Neuroimaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
21
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
22
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
23
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Photoacoustics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
28
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
29
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%