Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

A novel framework for fully-automated co-registration of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography imaging data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fully automated deep-learning pipeline can co-register IVUS and OCT coronary images to expert-level accuracy in under 90 seconds per vessel.

desk verdict A serious, well-validated integration of DL feature extraction with DTW for IVUS-OCT co-registration, but the top-weighted position feature and manual SOI step mean the 'fully automated' claim is weaker than presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05883 v1 pith:XQMGGQ5H submitted 2025-07-08 eess.IV cs.CV

Xingwei He , Kit Mills Bransby , Ahmet Emir Ulutas , Thamil Kumaran , Nathan Angelo Lecaros Yap , Gonul Zeren , Hesong Zeng , Yaojun Zhang
show 7 more authors
Andreas Baumbach James Moon Anthony Mathur Jouke Dijkstra Qianni Zhang Lorenz Raber Christos V Bourantas
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords intravascularultrasoundopticalcoherencetomographyco-registrationdeeplearningdynamictimewarpingcoronaryplaqueimagingmultimodalityimageregistration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that co-registering two complementary intravascular imaging modalities — ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) — can be made fully automatic, fast, and as accurate as expert human analysts. The authors build a deep-learning pipeline that extracts lumen borders, side-branch origins, and calcific tissue from both image types, then aligns the two pullbacks along the vessel with dynamic time warping and rotationally aligns matching frames with dynamic programming. On a test set of 77 vessels, the automated alignment agreed with expert analysts at concordance levels above 0.99 for longitudinal position and above 0.90 for rotational orientation, with Williams Indices of 0.96 and 0.97, meaning the machine matches experts about as well as experts match each other. The whole pipeline runs in under 90 seconds per vessel. If true, this removes the manual work that currently forces multimodality trials to analyze IVUS and OCT separately, making hybrid plaque characterization feasible on large datasets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a feature-extraction ensemble feeding two alignment algorithms. Three deep-learning components produce the registration features: a previously validated convolutional segmentation network retrained for lumen borders, a region-proposal object detector (Faster R-CNN style) for side-branch origins, and a Polar-UNet — a U-shaped network that operates on polar views of the lumen and uses self-attention in its decoder — to classify which circumferential angles contain calcium. Along the vessel axis, dynamic time warping (DTW) finds corresponding IVUS-OCT frame pairs by minimizing a feature-weighted Euclidean distance over sequences of lumen area, side-branch area, calcification degree, and normalized frame position; circumferentially, a rotation cost matrix is built by circularly sampling features around the lumen center (side-branch angle, calcification angle, lumen eccentricity), and a dynamic programming path with a shape-regularization term picks the rotation per frame. The normalized frame position feature, carrying the largest weight (2.5), is what anchors the longitudinal alignment when anatomical landmarks are sparse.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on paired pullbacks where the OCT pullback speed differs from the 36 mm/s used here, or where the two catheters cover visibly different segment lengths, and compare against expert landmark-based matching: if the high longitudinal CCC (above 0.99) drops, the normalized-frame-position prior is doing the work rather than the anatomical features. A second check is to examine segments with few side branches and little calcium, where the 1-to-1 DTW constraint and the frame-position prior are nearly the only signals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully automated, multi-stage framework can match NIRS-IVUS and OCT images of the same coronary segment with accuracy indistinguishable from expert manual co-registration. Deep-learning networks first segment lumen borders, detect side-branch origins, and classify calcific arcs in every frame; a feature-weighted dynamic time warping then finds corresponding frames along the pullbacks using lumen area, side-branch area, calcification degree, and normalized frame position; and a dynamic-programming search over a rotation cost matrix aligns the circumferential orientation of the OCT frames to IVUS. The authors report concordance correlation coefficients above 0.99 (longitudinal) and above 0.90 (circumferential) against expert analysts on a test set of 77 vessels, Williams Indices of 0.96 and 0.97, and a runtime under 90 seconds per vessel, and they position the framework as the first to overcome the segmentation, manual-landmark, and validation limitations of earlier co-registration methods.

Load-bearing premise

The longitudinal alignment leans hardest on 'normalized frame position' — the assumption that a given frame sits at roughly the same relative spot along both pullbacks — so the match will drift if the two acquisitions cover different segment lengths, use different pullback speeds, or space frames differently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated analysis of large multimodality imaging studies becomes feasible, since a vessel that takes an expert analyst about 576 seconds to register is processed by the pipeline in about 84 seconds.
  • Hybrid assessment of plaque — combining plaque burden and calcium from IVUS with fibrous-cap thickness from OCT at matched cross-sections — can be performed without manual landmark identification.
  • The framework runs on unsegmented image data, so it can be applied directly to raw pullbacks rather than requiring the separate segmentation step that earlier co-registration methods needed.
  • Registration results are fully reproducible, removing the inter-observer variability documented between and within expert analysts.
  • The feature-extraction stage supplies registration signals in both modalities without human annotation, with near-0.9 Dice/F1 performance for lumen, side branch, and calcium detection in IVUS and OCT.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the normalized-frame-position prior generalizes, the same feature-weighted DTW recipe could be ported to other paired pullback settings — such as different OCT pullback speeds or hybrid catheters — by learning new feature weights per acquisition protocol.
  • The dependence on side branches and calcific tissue as high-signal landmarks implies that accuracy in long smooth segments with no branches and no calcium would degrade toward the frame-position prior, so performance on such segments is a natural stress test.
  • The sequential longitudinal-then-circumferential design likely propagates temporal errors into rotational matching; a quantitative comparison against joint optimization would reveal how much error that ordering adds, a step toward the graph-matching approach the authors flag as future work.
  • A direct generalizability check would apply the pipeline to data from other IVUS or OCT vendors, or to pullbacks with different frame-sampling intervals, which the authors acknowledge is unaddressed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fully automated deep-learning pipeline for co-registering NIRS-IVUS and OCT pullbacks, using automated detection of lumen borders, side branches, and calcific tissue followed by dynamic time warping for longitudinal alignment and a dynamic programming rotation search for circumferential alignment. The framework is trained and evaluated on 714 vessels from the PACMAN-AMI trial, with a patient-level split into training, validation, and test sets. On the 77-vessel test set, the authors report high concordance with expert analysts (CCC > 0.99 longitudinal, > 0.90 circumferential), a Williams Index of 0.96 and 0.97, and an execution time under 90 seconds per vessel. The paper claims this is the first fully automated framework to overcome limitations of prior semiautomated registration methods.

Significance. If the reported accuracy is genuine, this framework would be a practical and valuable research tool: it is fast, leverages a large expert-annotated dataset, uses a reasonable patient-level evaluation split, and directly addresses a known bottleneck in multimodality intravascular imaging studies. The independent test set and the comparison against inter- and intra-observer variability are strengths. However, the central validity of the longitudinal evaluation is compromised by the design interaction between the dominant 'normalized frame position' feature and the piecewise-linear-interpolation ground truth, so the headline concordance may partly reflect agreement with an interpolation convention rather than with true anatomical matching. The manual definition of the segment of interest in Section 2.3 also weakens the 'fully automated' claim. These concerns must be resolved before the performance claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.5.2 and Section 2.4] The longitudinal registration uses a 'normalized frame position' feature with weight 2.5, the highest among four features, while the expert ground truth in Section 2.4 was created by identifying sparse anatomical landmarks and applying linear interpolation between them to match the remaining frames. A strong linear position prior will tend to reproduce that same piecewise-linear mapping, making the reported CCC > 0.99 and Williams Index 0.96 partly self-confirming. The evaluation does not establish that the image-derived features (lumen area, side branches, calcification) are locating true anatomical correspondence beyond what the position prior alone would achieve. Please provide an ablation study that removes the normalized frame position feature, or an alternative evaluation that compares the DL output against point-wise anatomical landmark matches rather than the interpolated mapping; without this, the longitudinal accuracy claim is not adequately supported.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Section 4] The paper states in Section 2.3 that an expert analyst defined each segment of interest (SOI) using anatomical landmarks visible in angiography, NIRS-IVUS, and OCT. The automated pipeline then operates only within these manually defined SOIs. As a result, the framework is not 'fully automated' in the sense claimed in the Discussion (Section 4): the manual SOI definition supplies the endpoints that make the normalized frame position feature meaningful, and it may also remove cases or segments where the two pullbacks cover substantially different ranges. Please clarify the exact input required from the operator, and either report the framework's sensitivity to the SOI definition or present results in a setting where the SOI is derived automatically (e.g., from the angiographic pullback ranges). At minimum, the claim should be softened to 'fully automated within a manually defined segment of interest.'
  3. [Section 3.4 and Supplement S1] The Williams Index is reported as 0.96 and 0.97 with 95% confidence intervals that appear to include 1.00 in Table 3 (e.g., 0.94–1.00 for longitudinal). The text in Section 3.4 interprets this as 'comparable performance,' which is fair, but the abstract and conclusion state the method 'compares favorably' to experts. Since the point estimates are below 1 and the confidence intervals straddle 1, the evidence supports equivalence rather than superiority. Please adjust the wording to avoid overstating the result, and report whether the Wilcoxon comparisons in Section 3.4 are corrected for the multiple comparisons performed (the paper reports four p-values without any multiplicity adjustment).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.5.2] The subsection is numbered 2.5.2 but appears after Section 2.6.1 in the text; it should be renumbered (likely 2.6.2) to follow the logical order of the methods.
  2. [Section 2.7] There is a typo: 'Sperman correlation coefficient' should be 'Spearman correlation coefficient.'
  3. [Section 2.6.1] The lumen segmentation training set is described as 61,665 NIRS-IVUS frames in Section 2.6.1, but the abstract states 61,655. Please verify the correct number and use it consistently.
  4. [Figure 4] The figure caption and legend use repeated colors ('red, orange, blue, red') which is likely a typo; one of the 'red' entries should probably be a different color. Please correct for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Longitudinal 'prediction' partially reduces to the linear-interpolation convention used to build the expert ground truth: the DTW's dominant normalized-frame-position feature (weight 2.5) mirrors the reference's piecewise-linear matching, so CCC>0.99 partly measures agreement with an interpolation prior rather than independent anatomical correspondence.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.4 (manual co-registration) and Section 2.5.2 (automated longitudinal matching/DTW)]
    "Linear interpolation was then applied to match the NIRS-IVUS and OCT images located between corresponding sections. In this way, each NIRS-IVUS cross section of the SOI had a corresponding OCT frame. ... we extracted four features from each modality: ... and (4) normalized frame position, representing the relative temporal location of each frame. ... We tune hyperparameters on the validation set of 65 vessels, finding optimal longitudinal feature weighting of 0.3 for lumen area, 1.5 for side branch area, 0.1 for calcium degree, and 2.5 for normalized frame position."

    The expert reference is built from sparse landmarks plus linear interpolation between corresponding sections (Section 2.4). The automated DTW (Section 2.5.2) assigns its largest feature weight (2.5) to 'normalized frame position', a monotone relative-frame-index feature; a path dominated by this feature reproduces the same linear/piecewise-linear mapping used to construct the reference. The image features that could falsify the linear convention carry weights of only 0.3, 1.5, and 0.1. The reported CCC>0.99 and WI=0.96 therefore partly measure agreement with the analysts' interpolation convention rather than independent anatomical truth.

full rationale

The central circularity concern is the interaction between the construction of the expert reference and the longitudinal DTW feature set. Section 2.4 defines the reference by identifying sparse anatomical landmarks and applying linear interpolation between them. Section 2.5.2 then runs DTW with a feature-weighted distance in which normalized frame position has the largest weight (2.5). This position feature is a linear prior, so the algorithm is heavily biased toward the same piecewise-linear mapping that generated the ground truth. The learned lumen, side-branch, and calcium features are real contributions and are separately validated on detection metrics (Table 2), so the framework is not wholly circular. However, the headline longitudinal concordance (CCC>0.99, WI=0.96) largely confirms that the method reproduces the analysts' interpolation convention rather than independently establishing anatomical correspondence. The circumferential registration is less directly affected because it uses learned angular features and dynamic programming, but it inherits longitudinal errors and explicitly mimics the expert strategy, adding to the self-consistency. The manual definition of the SOI in Section 2.3 also conditions the 'fully automated' claim on an expert-provided segment, though that is a limitation rather than a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the cited prior DL methods are auxiliary and were retrained on this dataset. Score 6 reflects a partial, construction-driven reduction of the longitudinal prediction to the reference standard's own interpolation convention.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of validation-tuned feature weights, a linear frame-position prior, and the domain assumption that expert co-registration based on anatomical landmarks is a trustworthy reference. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the framework combines existing imaging features and algorithms.

free parameters (4)
  • Longitudinal feature weights = lumen 0.3, side branch 1.5, calcium 0.1, normalized frame position 2.5
    Tuned on the validation set (65 vessels) to optimize registration accuracy; they directly determine the DTW distance and therefore the matching output. The high frame-position weight makes alignment mostly linear.
  • Circumferential feature weights = side branch 1, calcification angle 1, lumen eccentricity 0.1
    Tuned on the validation set for the rotation cost matrix; controls how strongly each feature contributes to the rotation alignment.
  • Detection confidence thresholds = side branch 0.8, lumen 0.5, calcium 0.9
    Thresholds for accepting detections and segmentations; chosen from validation; affects which landmarks enter the registration features.
  • OCT downsampling factor = every second frame
    OCT frames are subsampled by retaining every second frame before DTW; this changes the temporal resolution of the matching.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Side branches and calcific tissue identifiable in both NIRS-IVUS and OCT correspond to the same physical landmarks and can be used for co-registration.
    This is the premise of the landmark-based registration: the two modalities depict the same anatomy and these features are visible in both.
  • domain assumption Expert co-registration based on anatomical landmarks and linear interpolation is a valid reference standard.
    The evaluation treats expert matching as ground truth; if experts are biased or inconsistent, the reported CCC and WI would not measure true accuracy. Inter-observer variability is reported but no external gold standard exists.
  • ad hoc to paper Normalized frame position is a reliable prior for longitudinal correspondence.
    Feature (4) in Section 2.5.2, with the largest weight (2.5), assumes corresponding frames lie at similar relative positions along the pullback; this mirrors the linear interpolation used to build the ground truth.
  • domain assumption The imaging catheters used in PACMAN-AMI (specific NIRS-IVUS and OCT systems) produce data within the distribution the DL models were trained on.
    The paper notes it is unclear whether results generalize to other catheters; the claim is restricted to these systems.
  • standard math DTW and dynamic programming produce a valid optimal matching under the given cost definitions.
    Standard algorithms; no new mathematical claims are made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A novel framework for fully-automated co-registration of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography imaging data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQMGGQ5H

@misc{pith2026250705883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A novel framework for fully-automated co-registration of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography imaging data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQMGGQ5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05883}
}
read the original abstract

Aims: To develop a deep-learning (DL) framework that will allow fully automated longitudinal and circumferential co-registration of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. Methods and results: Data from 230 patients (714 vessels) with acute coronary syndrome that underwent near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)-IVUS and OCT imaging in their non-culprit vessels were included in the present analysis. The lumen borders annotated by expert analysts in 61,655 NIRS-IVUS and 62,334 OCT frames, and the side branches and calcific tissue identified in 10,000 NIRS-IVUS frames and 10,000 OCT frames, were used to train DL solutions for the automated extraction of these features. The trained DL solutions were used to process NIRS-IVUS and OCT images and their output was used by a dynamic time warping algorithm to co-register longitudinally the NIRS-IVUS and OCT images, while the circumferential registration of the IVUS and OCT was optimized through dynamic programming. On a test set of 77 vessels from 22 patients, the DL method showed high concordance with the expert analysts for the longitudinal and circumferential co-registration of the two imaging sets (concordance correlation coefficient >0.99 for the longitudinal and >0.90 for the circumferential co-registration). The Williams Index was 0.96 for longitudinal and 0.97 for circumferential co-registration, indicating a comparable performance to the analysts. The time needed for the DL pipeline to process imaging data from a vessel was <90s. Conclusion: The fully automated, DL-based framework introduced in this study for the co-registration of IVUS and OCT is fast and provides estimations that compare favorably to the expert analysts. These features renders it useful in research in the analysis of large-scale data collected in studies that incorporate multimodality imaging to characterize plaque composition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshot of QCU-CMS software used by the expert to co-register the NIRS-IVUS and OCT data. After the identification of the ED frames in NIRS-IVUS, showing in the longitudinal IVUS image with green bars, and the selection of OCT frames at 0.4mm interval, shown in the longitudinal OCT image with red bars, in the SOI an expert analyst reviewed the IVUS and OCT images and identify corresponding frames using anatomical l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Linear regression analysis between the estimations of the experts (A, A”) the first and second annotation of the first expert, (B, B”) the estimations of the DL method and the 1st expert (C and C”) and the estimations of the DL method and the second expert (D and D”) for the longitudinal (top panels) and circumferential orientation (bottom panels) of the intravascular imaging data. The blue line represents the regre… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison between method and expert analysts. Four frames (red, orange, blue, red) matched longitudinally and circumferentially in NIRS-IVUS and OCT by the first analyst (A1) are compared to the OCT frame and rotation predictions of the second analyst (A2) and the DL method. Due to interpolation, multiple OCT frames can be matched to a single NIRS-IVUS frame. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NIRS-IVUS and OCT Registration by expert. (A) NIRS-IVUS image showing lipid-rich plaque detected by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), indicated by the yellow-red color scale on the outer ring. (B) IVUS-derived plaque characterization using echogenicity: green represen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Plaque characterization of atherosclerotic coronary arteries by intravascular ultrasound

    Bartorelli AL, Potkin BN, Almagor Y, Keren G, Roberts WC, Leon MB. Plaque characterization of atherosclerotic coronary arteries by intravascular ultrasound. Echocardiography. 1990;7(4):389-95. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8175.1990.tb00379.x

    work page arXiv 1990

  2. [2]

    Optical coherence tomography for optical biopsy

    Brezinski ME, Tearney GJ, Bouma BE, et al. Optical coherence tomography for optical biopsy. Properties and demonstration of vascular pathology. Circulation. 1996;93(6):1206-13. doi:10.1161/01.cir.93.6.1206

    work page doi:10.1161/01.cir.93.6.1206 1996

  3. [3]

    Identification of vulnerable plaques and patients by intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy and ultrasound (PROSPECT II): a prospective natural history study

    Erlinge D, Maehara A, Ben-Yehuda O, et al. Identification of vulnerable plaques and patients by intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy and ultrasound (PROSPECT II): a prospective natural history study. Lancet. 2021;397(10278):985-95. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00249-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00249-x 2021

  4. [4]

    Thin-cap fibroatheroma predicts clinical events in diabetic patients with normal fractional flow reserve: the COMBINE OCT-FFR trial

    Kedhi E, Berta B, Roleder T, et al. Thin-cap fibroatheroma predicts clinical events in diabetic patients with normal fractional flow reserve: the COMBINE OCT-FFR trial. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(45):4671-9. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab433

    work page doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab433 2021

  5. [5]

    Relationship between coronary plaque morphology of the left anterior descending artery and 12 months clinical outcome: the CLIMA study

    Prati F, Romagnoli E, Gatto L, et al. Relationship between coronary plaque morphology of the left anterior descending artery and 12 months clinical outcome: the CLIMA study. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(3):383-91. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz520

    work page doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz520 2020

  6. [6]

    A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis

    Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ, et al. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(3):226-35. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1002358

    work page doi:10.1056/nejmoa1002358 2011

  7. [7]

    Identification of patients and plaques vulnerable to future coronary events with near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging: a prospective, cohort study

    Waksman R, Di Mario C, Torguson R, et al. Identification of patients and plaques vulnerable to future coronary events with near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging: a prospective, cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394(10209):1629-37. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31794-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31794-5 2019

  8. [8]

    What have we learnt from histology about the efficacy of coronary imaging modalities in assessing plaque composition? Front Cardiovasc Med

    Yap NAL, Khan Z, He X, et al. What have we learnt from histology about the efficacy of coronary imaging modalities in assessing plaque composition? Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025;12:1507892. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1507892

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Reliable in vivo intravascular imaging plaque characterization: A challenge unmet

    Ramasamy A, Serruys PW, Jones DA, et al. Reliable in vivo intravascular imaging plaque characterization: A challenge unmet. Am Heart J. 2019;218:20-31. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2019.07.008

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Emerging Hybrid Intracoronary Imaging Technologies and Their Applications in Clinical Practice and Research

    Tufaro V, Jaffer FA, Serruys PW, et al. Emerging Hybrid Intracoronary Imaging Technologies and Their Applications in Clinical Practice and Research. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024;17(17):1963-79. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.07.007

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Effect of high-intensity statin therapy on atherosclerosis in non- infarct-related coronary arteries (IBIS-4): a serial intravascular ultrasonography study

    Raber L, Taniwaki M, Zaugg S, et al. Effect of high-intensity statin therapy on atherosclerosis in non- infarct-related coronary arteries (IBIS-4): a serial intravascular ultrasonography study. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(8):490-500. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu373

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Effect of Alirocumab Added to High-Intensity Statin Therapy on Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PACMAN-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial

    Raber L, Ueki Y, Otsuka T, et al. Effect of Alirocumab Added to High-Intensity Statin Therapy on Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PACMAN-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022;327(18):1771-81. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.5218

    2022

  5. [13]

    Intracoronary Imaging, Cholesterol Efflux, and Transcriptomes After Intensive Statin Treatment: The YELLOW II Study

    Kini AS, Vengrenyuk Y, Shameer K, et al. Intracoronary Imaging, Cholesterol Efflux, and Transcriptomes After Intensive Statin Treatment: The YELLOW II Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(6):628-40. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.029

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Prevalence and characteristics of TCFA and degree of coronary artery stenosis: an OCT, IVUS, and angiographic study

    Tian J, Dauerman H, Toma C, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of TCFA and degree of coronary artery stenosis: an OCT, IVUS, and angiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(7):672-80. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.052

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Tian J, Ren X, Vergallo R, et al. Distinct morphological features of ruptured culprit plaque for acute coronary events compared to those with silent rupture and thin-cap fibroatheroma: a combined optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardio...

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Offline fusion of co-registered intravascular ultrasound and frequency domain optical coherence tomography images for the analysis of human atherosclerotic plaques

    Raber L, Heo JH, Radu MD, et al. Offline fusion of co-registered intravascular ultrasound and frequency domain optical coherence tomography images for the analysis of human atherosclerotic plaques. EuroIntervention. 2012;8(1):98-108. doi:10.4244/EIJV8I1A16

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Evaluation of a framework for the co-registration of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography coronary artery pullbacks

    Molony DS, Timmins LH, Rasoul-Arzrumly E, Samady H, Giddens DP. Evaluation of a framework for the co-registration of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography coronary artery pullbacks. J Biomech. 2016;49(16):4048-56. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.10.040 23

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Semi-Automatic Matching of OCT and IVUS Images For Image Fusion

    Pauly O, Unal G, Slabaugh G, Carlier S, Fang T. Semi-Automatic Matching of OCT and IVUS Images For Image Fusion. Proc. SPIE 6914, Medical Imaging. 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    A New Framework for the Integrative Analytics of Intravascular Ultrasound and Optical Coherence Tomography Images

    Huang C, Xie Y, Lan Y, et al. A New Framework for the Integrative Analytics of Intravascular Ultrasound and Optical Coherence Tomography Images. IEEE Access. 2018:36408-19

    2018

  12. [20]

    Fusion of IVUS and OCT through semi-automatic registration

    Unal G, Lankton S, Carlier S, Slabaugh G, Chen Y. Fusion of IVUS and OCT through semi-automatic registration. Proceedings MICCAI CVII 2006:162-70

    2006

  13. [21]

    Zanchin C, Koskinas KC, Ueki Y, et al. Effects of the PCSK9 antibody alirocumab on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a serial, multivessel, intravascular ultrasound, near-infrared spectroscopy and optical coherence tomography imaging study-...

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    CARDIAN: a novel computational approach for real-time end-diastolic frame detection in intravascular ultrasound using bidirectional attention networks

    Huang X, Bajaj R, Cui W, et al. CARDIAN: a novel computational approach for real-time end-diastolic frame detection in intravascular ultrasound using bidirectional attention networks. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1250800. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2023.1250800

    2023

  15. [23]

    American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS)

    Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, et al. American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical ...

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    Tearney GJ, Regar E, Akasaka T, et al. Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: a report from the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography Standardization and Valida...

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    POLYCORE: Polygon-based contour refinement for improved Intravascular Ultrasound Segmentation

    Bransby KM, Bajaj R, Ramasamy A, et al. POLYCORE: Polygon-based contour refinement for improved Intravascular Ultrasound Segmentation. Comput Biol Med. 2024;182:109162. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109162

    2024

  18. [26]

    Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks

    Ren S, He K, Girshick R, Sun J. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2017;39(6):1137-49. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031

    2017

  19. [27]

    Attention is all you need

    Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc.; 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series

    Berndt DJ, Clifford J. Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; July 311994. p. 359–70

  21. [29]

    Simultaneous extraction of carotid artery intima- media interfaces in ultrasound images: assessment of wall thickness temporal variation during the cardiac cycle

    Zahnd G, Orkisz M, Serusclat A, Moulin P, Vray D. Simultaneous extraction of carotid artery intima- media interfaces in ultrasound images: assessment of wall thickness temporal variation during the cardiac cycle. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2014;9(4):645-58. doi:10.1007/s...

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool

    Taha AA, Hanbury A. Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool. BMC Med Imaging. 2015;15:29. doi:10.1186/s12880-015-0068-x

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    A survey on performance metrics for object-detection algorithms

    Padilla R, Netto SL, Da Silva EA. A survey on performance metrics for object-detection algorithms. 2020 International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP); July 1: IEEE; 2020. p. 237– 242

    2020

  24. [32]

    A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility

    Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45(1):255- 68

    1989

  25. [33]

    A methodology for evaluation of boundary detection algorithms on medical images

    Chalana V, Kim Y. A methodology for evaluation of boundary detection algorithms on medical images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997;16(5):642-52. doi:10.1109/42.640755

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    Intravascular imaging assessment of pharmacotherapies targeting atherosclerosis: advantages and limitations in predicting their prognostic implications

    Tufaro V, Serruys PW, Raber L, et al. Intravascular imaging assessment of pharmacotherapies targeting atherosclerosis: advantages and limitations in predicting their prognostic implications. Cardiovasc Res. 2023;119(1):121-35. doi:10.1093/cvr/cvac051

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Changes in plaque lipid content after short-term intensive versus standard statin therapy: the YELLOW trial (reduction in yellow plaque by aggressive lipid-lowering therapy)

    Kini AS, Baber U, Kovacic JC, et al. Changes in plaque lipid content after short-term intensive versus standard statin therapy: the YELLOW trial (reduction in yellow plaque by aggressive lipid-lowering therapy). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(1):21-9. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.058

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Machine learning for atherosclerotic tissue component classification in combined near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging: Validation against histology

    Bajaj R, Eggermont J, Grainger SJ, et al. Machine learning for atherosclerotic tissue component classification in combined near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging: Validation against histology. Atherosclerosis. 2022;345:15-25. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis....

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Advanced deep learning methodology for accurate, real-time segmentation of high-resolution intravascular ultrasound images

    Bajaj R, Huang X, Kilic Y, et al. Advanced deep learning methodology for accurate, real-time segmentation of high-resolution intravascular ultrasound images. Int J Cardiol. 2021;339:185-91. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.06.030

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Radu MD, Yamaji K, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Variability in the measurement of minimum fibrous cap thickness and reproducibility of fibroatheroma classification by optical coherence tomography using manual versus semi-automatic assessment. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(8):e987-e97....

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.