Deep learning-based prediction of kinetic parameters from myocardial perfusion MRI

Amedeo Chiribiri; Cian M. Scannell; Jack Lee; Marcel Breeuwer; Mitko Veta; Piet van den Bosch

Deep learning-based prediction of kinetic parameters from myocardial perfusion MRI

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-05-24 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Convolutional networks trained on Bayesian estimates predict kinetic parameters from myocardial perfusion MRI curves with similar accuracy but much faster computation.

desk verdict This paper trains a CNN on Bayesian MCMC outputs to speed up kinetic parameter estimation in myocardial perfusion MRI, but the abstract gives no metrics or held-out results so the performance claim stays untested. read the letter →

arxiv 1907.11899 v1 pith:PHCPLOIZ submitted 2019-07-27 eess.IV cs.CVphysics.med-phq-bio.QM

Cian M. Scannell , Piet van den Bosch , Amedeo Chiribiri , Jack Lee , Marcel Breeuwer , Mitko Veta This is my paper

classification eess.IVcs.CVphysics.med-phq-bio.QM

keywords myocardialperfusionMRIkineticparametersconvolutionalneuralnetworksBayesianinferencedeeplearningparameterestimationsignalintensitycurvesischaemia

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 proposes using convolutional neural networks to estimate kinetic parameters directly from signal-intensity curves in myocardial perfusion MRI. The networks are trained using parameter estimates obtained from Bayesian inference, which incorporates prior knowledge to handle noise and low temporal resolution. If successful, this would replace the computationally expensive Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling with fast forward passes through the network. A reader would care because it enables automated, reliable quantification of myocardial ischaemia without long processing times.

What carries the argument

Convolutional neural networks supervised by Bayesian inference estimates to map signal-intensity time curves to kinetic parameters.

What would settle it

Running the trained networks on new patient data and finding that the predicted parameters differ substantially from both Bayesian estimates and independent clinical measures of perfusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that convolutional networks can be trained to directly predict the kinetic parameters from the signal-intensity curves using estimates from Bayesian inference as supervision, allowing fast estimation of the parameters with performance similar to the Bayesian method itself.

Load-bearing premise

The Bayesian inference estimates must provide accurate ground truth labels, and the mapping learned by the network must generalize to new patients and data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Quantification of myocardial perfusion MRI becomes computationally fast and practical for clinical use.
Assessment of myocardial ischaemia can be automated and user-independent.
Parameter estimation avoids the time cost of Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling while retaining reliability.
The approach leverages prior knowledge from Bayesian methods without needing to run sampling at inference time.

Reading between the lines

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

Such networks could be deployed for real-time analysis during MRI acquisition.
Similar techniques might apply to other tracer-kinetic modeling problems in medical imaging.
Validation on multi-center datasets would test if the learned mapping holds across different scanners and populations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core move is straightforward: they generate training labels with Bayesian inference on signal-intensity curves, then train a convolutional network to map those curves straight to the kinetic parameters. This sidesteps the MCMC sampling time while trying to keep the same output distribution. That is the actual new piece here—an application of surrogate modeling to this specific cardiac MRI workflow. It does address a real practical bottleneck, since full Bayesian fitting is too slow for routine clinical use. The approach is internally consistent on its own terms and the citation pattern looks normal for the subfield. The main limitation is that the network can only reproduce whatever biases or failure modes already exist in the Bayesian estimates used as targets. The abstract claims similar performance but supplies zero numbers on bias, variance, patient numbers, train/test splits, or generalization to new acquisitions. Without those details it is impossible to judge whether the CNN actually holds up on unseen data or simply memorizes the training distribution. This work is aimed at groups already doing automated perfusion analysis who want faster maps; a reader already familiar with both Bayesian kinetic modeling and CNN surrogates will get the most out of it. If the full paper contains quantitative held-out validation and clear metrics, it is worth sending to review. If the experiments are as thin as the abstract, it is closer to a methods note than a finished result.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes training convolutional neural networks to predict kinetic parameters directly from signal-intensity time curves in myocardial perfusion MRI. The networks are supervised using parameter estimates previously obtained via Bayesian inference with MCMC sampling; the goal is to achieve comparable accuracy to the Bayesian method at substantially lower computational cost.

Significance. If the performance equivalence and generalization claims hold on independent data, the approach would remove the main practical barrier (MCMC runtime) to routine quantitative perfusion analysis, enabling faster, more reproducible clinical assessment of myocardial ischaemia.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the CNN achieves 'similar performance to the Bayesian inference' is unsupported by any quantitative metrics (bias, variance, concordance, or clinical endpoints), patient numbers, acquisition details, or train/test split information. This information is load-bearing for the claim that the learned mapping is reliable.
[Abstract] The supervision strategy uses Bayesian-inferred parameters as ground-truth labels. Any systematic bias or failure mode of the Bayesian procedure (e.g., under high noise or low temporal resolution) is therefore reproduced by the network; the manuscript provides no independent validation against simulated ground truth or clinical reference standards to demonstrate that the CNN does not simply inherit these limitations.
[Abstract] No evidence is presented that the mapping learned from the training distribution generalizes to new patients, scanners, or acquisition protocols. Because the labels are themselves model-based estimates rather than independent measurements, the risk of overfitting to the Bayesian method's idiosyncrasies is not addressed by any held-out evaluation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each of the major comments point-by-point below. Revisions have been made to the abstract and discussion to improve the support for our claims and to clarify the scope of the work.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the CNN achieves 'similar performance to the Bayesian inference' is unsupported by any quantitative metrics (bias, variance, concordance, or clinical endpoints), patient numbers, acquisition details, or train/test split information. This information is load-bearing for the claim that the learned mapping is reliable.

Authors: We agree with the referee that the abstract should be more informative to substantiate the central claim. Although the full manuscript contains quantitative metrics (including bias, variance, and concordance), patient numbers, acquisition details, and train/test split information in the Methods and Results sections, these were not summarized in the abstract. We have revised the abstract to include these key details, making the performance claim properly supported within the abstract itself. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] The supervision strategy uses Bayesian-inferred parameters as ground-truth labels. Any systematic bias or failure mode of the Bayesian procedure (e.g., under high noise or low temporal resolution) is therefore reproduced by the network; the manuscript provides no independent validation against simulated ground truth or clinical reference standards to demonstrate that the CNN does not simply inherit these limitations.

Authors: The manuscript's goal is to provide a computationally efficient alternative that replicates the performance of the Bayesian MCMC method. Therefore, the CNN is designed to learn the mapping from the Bayesian estimates, and it is expected to inherit the properties and any associated biases of that method. We did not perform or claim independent validation against other ground truths, as that would be outside the scope of demonstrating equivalence in speed and accuracy to the reference Bayesian approach. We have added text to the Discussion section to explicitly acknowledge this and to note the reliance on the Bayesian labels as a limitation. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract] No evidence is presented that the mapping learned from the training distribution generalizes to new patients, scanners, or acquisition protocols. Because the labels are themselves model-based estimates rather than independent measurements, the risk of overfitting to the Bayesian method's idiosyncrasies is not addressed by any held-out evaluation.

Authors: The manuscript does include a held-out test set evaluation on data from the same patient cohort and acquisition protocol to demonstrate performance on unseen samples. This addresses generalization within the studied distribution. However, we agree that no experiments on data from different scanners or protocols are presented, and this is a valid concern regarding broader applicability and potential overfitting to the specific Bayesian estimates. We have revised the Discussion to highlight this as a limitation and an important direction for future validation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

CNN performance claim reduces to reproduction of Bayesian training labels

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"This work proposes training convolutional networks to directly predict the kinetic parameters from the signal-intensity curves that are trained using estimates obtained from the Bayesian inference. This allows fast estimation of the kinetic parameters with a similar performance to the Bayesian inference."

The network is explicitly trained to match the Bayesian-inferred parameter values; therefore the claim of 'similar performance to the Bayesian inference' is a direct measure of reproduction of the training targets rather than an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper trains CNNs on kinetic parameters obtained from Bayesian inference and then claims the networks achieve similar performance. This matches the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern exactly: the target outputs are the Bayesian estimates themselves, so any reported agreement on held-out curves is a measure of how faithfully the network reproduces its training labels rather than an independent validation against ground truth. No other circularity patterns are present in the provided text; the speed advantage is independent of the label source.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits identification of specific parameters or axioms; the core reliance is on the quality of Bayesian labels and the learnability of the parameter mapping.

free parameters (1)

network hyperparameters
The CNN architecture and training parameters are chosen but not specified in abstract.

assumptions (1)

domain assumption Bayesian inference estimates are suitable as ground truth for supervised learning
The method relies on using MCMC-based Bayesian estimates to train the network.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep learning-based prediction of kinetic parameters from myocardial perfusion MRI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHCPLOIZ

@misc{pith2026190711899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep learning-based prediction of kinetic parameters from myocardial perfusion MRI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHCPLOIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1907.11899}
}

read the original abstract

The quantification of myocardial perfusion MRI has the potential to provide a fast, automated and user-independent assessment of myocardial ischaemia. However, due to the relatively high noise level and low temporal resolution of the acquired data and the complexity of the tracer-kinetic models, the model fitting can yield unreliable parameter estimates. A solution to this problem is the use of Bayesian inference which can incorporate prior knowledge and improve the reliability of the parameter estimation. This, however, uses Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling to approximate the posterior distribution of the kinetic parameters which is extremely time intensive. This work proposes training convolutional networks to directly predict the kinetic parameters from the signal-intensity curves that are trained using estimates obtained from the Bayesian inference. This allows fast estimation of the kinetic parameters with a similar performance to the Bayesian inference.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools

Reviewed May 24, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.