Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Advancements in Artificial Intelligence Applications for Cardiovascular Disease Research

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that deep learning on CT, MRI, ECG, and ultrasound can surpass human diagnostic accuracy in cardiovascular disease, and that the main obstacle is models' inability to verify input data.

desk verdict A readable but uncritical narrative review whose central 'surpassing human capabilities' claim is not supported by its own tables, with an unexplained, self-weighted study selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03698 v1 pith:53XSIEBT submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CV

Yuanlin Mo , Haishan Huang , Bocheng Liang , Weibo Ma This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords ArtificialIntelligenceCardiovascularDiseaseDeepLearningCardiacImagingElectrocardiographyComputedTomographyMagneticResonanceUltrasound
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 review paper aims to establish that deep-learning systems applied to four cardiovascular diagnostic modalities—computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, electrocardiography, and ultrasound—can automate image and signal analysis with accuracy and efficiency that exceed human experts. The paper surveys selected studies in each modality, reporting metrics such as high agreement with human readers on coronary calcium scoring, expert-level classification of cardiac function on MRI, and strong screening performance for atrial fibrillation and ventricular dysfunction from ECG. It also argues that a critical unresolved challenge remains: most AI models cannot tell whether the input data are correct, so mistakes in input can propagate into diagnostic errors. The intended upshot is that AI is ready to meaningfully reshape cardiovascular diagnostics, but only if validation protocols and self-checking mechanisms are built around it.

What carries the argument

The organizing mechanism is not a single algorithm but a modality-by-modality review structured by four tables, one for CT, MRI, ECG, and ultrasound. Each table entry pairs a model and its dataset size with the study's stated strengths and limitations, and the paper aggregates these selected studies into broad conclusions about deep learning's capabilities. This assembled evidence base, together with a dataset-summary figure showing that ECG studies draw on far larger cohorts than imaging studies, carries the argument that AI-driven diagnostics outperform human readers and that data-validation failure is the main remaining barrier.

What would settle it

A systematic literature search with explicit inclusion criteria that surfaced a substantial body of comparable studies where AI failed to match expert readers—or where pooled sensitivity and specificity were no better than human performance—would falsify the review's general claim. Concretely, re-deriving the four tables from an independent, reproducible search and comparing pooled metrics against human benchmarks would settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that deep-learning architectures—including convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, and generative adversarial networks—enable automated analysis of cardiovascular imaging and physiological signals at a level that surpasses human capabilities in both diagnostic accuracy and workflow efficiency. It supports this by reviewing selected studies: an AI system for congenital heart disease from CT, automated coronary artery calcium scoring that placed 89% of patients into the same risk category as human observers, an end-to-end cardiac magnetic resonance system whose F1 score matched cardiologists with more than a decade of experience, an ECG-based deep network trained on over 1.6 million recordings, an AI-ECG screen for cardiac contractile dysfunction, and an echocardiogram video model that segments the left ventricle with a Dice coefficient of 0.92 and detects heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with an area under the curve of 0.97. Alongside these successes, the paper contends that the field's decisive limitation is that models cannot validate the correctness of their input data, which can propagate diagnostic errors and compromise clinical reliability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the studies selected for Tables 1 through 4 fairly represent the broader literature; if the selection overweights successful applications or one group's work, the generalized claim that AI surpasses human diagnostic performance is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI-enabled ECG analysis could screen for conditions such as atrial fibrillation during normal sinus rhythm and detect left ventricular dysfunction, shifting which patients are referred for expensive imaging.
  • Automated coronary calcium scoring and end-to-end cardiac MRI interpretation could reduce radiologist workload and make population-level cardiovascular screening faster and cheaper.
  • Video-based echocardiogram models could provide real-time, beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function, enabling point-of-care diagnosis of heart failure.
  • Because models cannot verify input correctness, clinical deployment will require explicit validation protocols or self-checking mechanisms before AI outputs are trusted for patient care.
  • Hybrid models that combine multimodal data—such as ECG with imaging—and adaptive algorithms are presented as the likely route toward personalized cardiovascular care.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this claim generalizes, the practical bottleneck in cardiovascular AI shifts from improving model accuracy to data-quality assurance, regulatory approval, and prospective testing in diverse patient populations.
  • The paper's emphasis on input verification suggests a testable design goal: models should be evaluated not only on clean data but on their ability to flag corrupted or mislabeled inputs, since that is where the paper locates the greatest risk.
  • Because the ECG datasets in the summary are far larger than the imaging datasets, the fastest route to clinical validation may be ECG-based screening followed by confirmatory imaging, rather than attempting to deploy imaging-only AI directly.
  • A reader could extend the review by comparing hybrid ECG-plus-imaging models against single-modality baselines on the same cohort; the paper implies such multimodal fusion would improve diagnostic confidence but does not test it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a narrative review of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in cardiovascular disease research, organized by modality: CT, MRI, ECG, and ultrasound (US). It describes deep learning architectures, surveys a selected set of studies in four tables, summarizes dataset sizes, and discusses limitations centered on input-data validation and computational cost. The paper's central claim, stated in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, is that deep learning models 'surpass human capabilities in diagnostic accuracy and workflow efficiency' across these imaging and signal modalities. The review concludes by calling for self-validating AI systems and multimodal learning frameworks for future clinical deployment.

Significance. If its central claim were properly supported, this review would be a useful consolidation of recent AI applications across four major cardiovascular diagnostic modalities. The paper has strengths: it covers a broad range of applications, includes study-level limitations in its tables, and identifies important practical concerns such as input-data validation and model deployability. It also cites several high-impact recent studies, including Nature Medicine and Nature Communications papers. However, the evidence presented in the tables does not substantiate the headline claim of surpassing human capabilities; several table entries explicitly report mixed or inferior performance. The absence of a systematic literature search, inclusion criteria, or quality assessment further weakens the generalizability of the conclusions. The review is therefore more of an illustrative overview than a definitive assessment of the field.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 1; Section 6] The claim that deep learning 'surpasses human capabilities in diagnostic accuracy and workflow efficiency' is not supported by the evidence reported in the manuscript. Table 2 (MRI-2) lists 'low rates of accurate classifications in LVEF' as a limitation; Table 2 (MRI-4) reports an F1 score of 0.931 versus 0.927 for physicians, which is a match rather than a clear surpass, and specifically notes 'lower F1 scores for myocarditis'; Table 1 (CT-2) reports 89% agreement with human observers, not superiority. No pooled effect sizes, meta-analytic comparison, or statistical synthesis is provided. This is a load-bearing assertion because it is the central message of the paper. The authors should temper the claim to reflect the mixed and modality-specific evidence, or provide a systematic quantitative comparison.
  2. [Section 3; Tables 1-4] The review does not describe a search strategy, inclusion criteria, study selection process, or quality assessment. Without this information, the studies in Tables 1 through 4 cannot be regarded as a representative sample of the literature, and the aggregate impression of the field may be an artifact of the selection. This is especially problematic for a review whose conclusions are global statements about AI capabilities. The authors should either add a methodology section describing how studies were identified and selected, or explicitly reposition the paper as an illustrative narrative review and avoid literature-level generalizations.
  3. [Section 3.4] The ultrasound subsection relies heavily on the authors' own prior publications. Of the approximately fifteen studies described in this subsection, a large majority are authored by Pu, Liang, Li, Lu, He, Yang, or their close collaborators (references 29-42). In a non-systematic review, this visible concentration creates a representation bias that can inflate the apparent maturity of AI in fetal cardiac ultrasound. The authors should disclose this overlap, include a broader set of independent studies, and temper any claims about the state of the field in this subsection.
  4. [Section 5] The limitations section only addresses input-data validation and computational cost, but a review of this scope should also discuss review-level limitations such as publication bias, heterogeneity of datasets and evaluation metrics across the surveyed studies, potential demographic or selection biases (some of which are noted in Table 3, ECG-4), and the lack of external validation in many studies. Without discussing these, the review gives an incomplete picture of the reliability of the evidence it summarizes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [References] Reference 28 is identical to reference 25 (Hughes et al.), and the in-text citation at [28] appears to be a duplicate. Please correct or remove the redundant reference.
  2. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'compared to CT MRI and US' should be 'compared to CT, MRI, and US'; there is also a missing comma after 'CT'.
  3. [Table 3] In the ECG-3 row, 'inhealthy population' should be 'in healthy population'.
  4. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is cited as references [46] and [47], but these references are a chest radiograph database and a medical image segmentation model, respectively. The relationship between the figure and these references is unclear and should be clarified or the citations corrected.
  5. [Section 2] The sentence 'Transformer originally introduced in the domain of natural language processing (NLP), has progressively demonstrated its versatility' is grammatically incomplete; it should be revised to a full sentence, for example 'Transformers, originally introduced for natural language processing, have progressively demonstrated their versatility in medical image segmentation.'
  6. [Section 4] Figure 1 is described as a summary of selected studies' datasets, but the figure itself is not included in the text available for review. Please ensure the figure is self-explanatory and includes clear labels for modalities and sample-size statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review makes no derived predictions and its claims summarize external studies; self-citation concentration is a selection/representation concern, not a circular loop.

full rationale

This is a narrative review with no mathematical derivation chain, fitted parameters, or predictive model of its own. The central claim that deep learning architectures 'surpassing human capabilities in diagnostic accuracy and workflow efficiency' is a summary of external, independently validated studies (e.g., Nature Medicine, Lancet, Nature Communications), not a result derived from the review's own inputs. The ultrasound section (Section 3.4) does lean heavily on papers from the authors' own research group, including refs [29]–[42], and the review never states a search strategy or inclusion criteria; however, this is a selection-bias and generalizability limitation, not a circular reduction. The cited self-authored works contain their own external validations and do not define the review's conclusions by construction. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The limitations section's silence on selection bias and heterogeneity is a completeness concern, but it does not establish circularity. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No free parameters or invented entities appear in this review. The only underlying assumption is the representativeness and faithful reporting of the selected literature, which is not demonstrated by any methodology.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The selected studies accurately represent the state of AI in cardiovascular imaging and are faithfully summarized.
    The review draws all conclusions from Tables 1-4, but no search or selection methodology is provided, so the representativeness and accuracy of the summaries are assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advancements in Artificial Intelligence Applications for Cardiovascular Disease Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53XSIEBT

@misc{pith2026250603698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advancements in Artificial Intelligence Applications for Cardiovascular Disease Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53XSIEBT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03698}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have revolutionized cardiovascular medicine, particularly through integration with computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electrocardiography (ECG) and ultrasound (US). Deep learning architectures, including convolutional neural networks and generative adversarial networks, enable automated analysis of medical imaging and physiological signals, surpassing human capabilities in diagnostic accuracy and workflow efficiency. However, critical challenges persist, including the inability to validate input data accuracy, which may propagate diagnostic errors. This review highlights AI's transformative potential in precision diagnostics while underscoring the need for robust validation protocols to ensure clinical reliability. Future directions emphasize hybrid models integrating multimodal data and adaptive algorithms to refine personalized cardiovascular care.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Arts 2(2), 60–70 (2023)

    Patil, S., Shankar, H.: Transforming healthcare: harnessing the power of ai in the modern era. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Arts 2(2), 60–70 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14584 (2025)

    Liang, P., Pu, B., Huang, H., Li, Y., Wang, H., Ma, W., Chang, Q.: Vision foundation models in medical image analysis: Advances and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14584 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Cardiology clinics 24(3), 491–504 (2006)

    Hongo, R.H., Goldschlager, N.: Status of computerized electrocardiography. Cardiology clinics 24(3), 491–504 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Annual review of biomedical engineering 19(1), 221–248 (2017)

    Shen, D., Wu, G., Suk, H.-I.: Deep learning in medical image analysis. Annual review of biomedical engineering 19(1), 221–248 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Information 15(12), 755 (2024)

    Mienye, I.D., Swart, T.G.: A comprehensive review of deep learning: Architectures, recent advances, and applications. Information 15(12), 755 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the IEEE 86(11), 2278–2324 (1998)

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P.: Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86(11), 2278–2324 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    Cognitive science 14(2), 179–211 (1990)

    Elman, J.L.: Finding structure in time. Cognitive science 14(2), 179–211 (1990)

    1990

  8. [8]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Physics in Medicine & Biology 68(17), 175020 (2023)

    Liang, P., Chen, J., Yao, L., Yu, Y., Liang, K., Chang, Q.: Dawtran: dynamic adaptive windowing transformer network for pneumothorax segmentation with implicit feature alignment. Physics in Medicine & Biology 68(17), 175020 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Medical Image Analysis 90, 102953 (2023)

    Xu, X., Jia, Q., Yuan, H., Qiu, H., Dong, Y., Xie, W., Yao, Z., Zhang, J., Nie, Z., Li, X., et al.: A clinically applicable ai system for diagnosis of congenital heart diseases based on computed tomography images. Medical Image Analysis 90, 102953 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    European radiology 33(1), 321 –329 (2023)

    Ihdayhid, A.R., Lan, N.S., Williams, M., Newby, D., Flack, J., Kwok, S., Joyner, J., Gera, S., Dembo, L., Adler, B., et al.: Evaluation of an artificial intelligence coronary artery calcium scoring model from computed tomography. European radiology 33(1), 321 –329 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Cardiovascular Imaging 17(8), 894–906 (2024)

    Nurmohamed, N.S., Danad, I., Jukema, R.A., Winter, R.W., Groot, R.J., Driessen, R.S., Bom, M.J., Diemen, P., Pontone, G., Andreini, D., et al.: Development and validation of a quantitative coronary ct angiography model for diagnosis of vessel-specific coronary ischemia. Cardio...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Insights into Imaging 15(1), 1–12 (2024)

    Föllmer, B., Tsogias, S., Biavati, F., Schulze, K., Bosserdt, M., H¨overmann, L.G., Stober, S., Samek, W., Kofoed, K.F., Maurovich-Horvat, P., et al.: Automated segment-level coronary artery calcium scoring on non-contrast ct: a multi-task deep-learning approach. Insights into...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Nature Communications 15(1), 2747 (2024)

    Miller, R.J., Killekar, A., Shanbhag, A., Bednarski, B., Michalowska, A.M., Ruddy, T.D., Einstein, A.J., Newby, D.E., Lemley, M., Pieszko, K., et al.: Predicting mortality from ai cardiac volumes mass and coronary calcium on chest computed tomography. Nature Communications 15(...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), 230024 (2023)

    Wasserthal, J., Breit, H.-C., Meyer, M.T., Pradella, M., Hinck, D., Sauter, A.W., Heye, T., Boll, D.T., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., et al.: Totalsegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in ct images. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), 230024 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Magnetic resonance in medicine 86(5), 2837–2852 (2021)

    Küstner, T., Munoz, C., Psenicny, A., Bustin, A., Fuin, N., Qi, H., Neji, R., Kunze, K., Hajhosseiny, R., Prieto, C., et al.: Deep-learning based super-resolution for 3d isotropic coronary mr angiography in less than a minute. Magnetic resonance in medicine 86(5), 2837–2852 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Cardiovascular Imaging 15(3), 413–427 (2022)

    Wang, S., Patel, H., Miller, T., Ameyaw, K., Narang, A., Chauhan, D., Anand, S., Anyanwu, E., Besser, S.A., Kawaji, K., et al.: Ai based cmr assessment of biventricular function: clinical significance of intervendor variability and measurement errors. Cardiovascular Imaging 15...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Cardiovascular Imaging 16(10), 1288–1302 (2023)

    Pezel, T., Garot, P., Toupin, S., Sanguineti, F., Hovasse, T., Unterseeh, T., Champagne, S., Morisset, S., Chitiboi, T., Jacob, A.J., et al.: Ai-based fully automated left atrioventricular coupling index as a prognostic marker in patients undergoing stress cmr. Cardiovascular ...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Nature Medicine 30(5), 1471 – 1480 (2024)

    Wang, Y.-R., Yang, K., Wen, Y., Wang, P., Hu, Y., Lai, Y., Wang, Y., Zhao, K., Tang, S., Zhang, A., et al.: Screening and diagnosis of cardiovascular disease using artificial intelligence-enabled cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Nature Medicine 30(5), 1471 – 1480 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Nature communications 11(1), 1760 (2020)

    Ribeiro, A.H., Ribeiro, M.H., Paix˜ao, G.M., Oliveira, D.M., Gomes, P.R., Canazart, J.A., Ferreira, M.P., Andersson, C.R., Macfarlane, P.W., Meira Jr, W., et al.: Automatic diagnosis of the 12-lead ecg using a deep neural network. Nature communications 11(1), 1760 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 75(7), 722–733 (2020)

    Ko, W.-Y., Siontis, K.C., Attia, Z.I., Carter, R.E., Kapa, S., Ommen, S.R., Demuth, S.J., Ackerman, M.J., Gersh, B.J., Arruda-Olson, A.M., et al.: Detection of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy using a convolutional neural network-enabled electrocardiogram. Journal of the American C...

    2020

  14. [22]

    The Lancet 394(10201), 861–867 (2019)

    Attia, Z.I., Noseworthy, P.A., Lopez-Jimenez, F., Asirvatham, S.J., Deshmukh, A.J., Gersh, B.J., Carter, R.E., Yao, X., Rabinstein, A.A., Erickson, B.J., et al.: An artificial intelligence-enabled ecg algorithm for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation during...

    2019

  15. [23]

    In: 2017 Computing in Cardiology (cinc), pp

    Hong, S., Wu, M., Zhou, Y., Wang, Q., Shang, J., Li, H., Xie, J.: Encase: An ensemble classifier for ecg classification using expert features and deep neural networks. In: 2017 Computing in Cardiology (cinc), pp. 1–4 (2017). IEEE

    2017

  16. [24]

    Nature medicine 25(1), 70–74 (2019)

    Attia, Z.I., Kapa, S., Lopez-Jimenez, F., McKie, P.M., Ladewig, D.J., Satam, G., Pellikka, P.A., Enriquez-Sarano, M., Noseworthy, P.A., Munger, T.M., et al.: Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence– enabled electrocardiogram. Nature medic...

    2019

  17. [26]

    Circulation 129(25 suppl 2), 49–73 (2014)

    Goff Jr, D.C., Lloyd-Jones, D.M., Bennett, G., Coady, S., D’agostino, R.B., Gibbons, R., Greenland, P., Lackland, D.T., Levy, D., O’donnell, C.J., et al.: 2013 acc/aha guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the american college of cardiology/american h...

    2014

  18. [27]

    Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine 14(2), 003304 (2021)

    Riveros-Mckay, F., Weale, M.E., Moore, R., Selzam, S., Krapohl, E., Sivley, R.M., Tarran, W.A., Sørensen, P., Lachapelle, A.S., Griffiths, J.A., et al.: Integrated polygenic tool substantially enhances coronary artery disease prediction. Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medi...

    2021

  19. [28]

    NPJ digital medicine 6(1), 169 (2023)

    Hughes, J.W., Tooley, J., Torres Soto, J., Ostropolets, A., Poterucha, T., Christensen, M.K., Yuan, N., Ehlert, B., Kaur, D., Kang, G., et al.: A deep learning-based electrocardiogram risk score for long term cardiovascular death and disease. NPJ digital medicine 6(1), 169 (2023)

    2023

  20. [29]

    IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17(11), 7771–7780 (2021)

    Pu, B., Li, K., Li, S., Zhu, N.: Automatic fetal ultrasound standard plane recognition based on deep learning and iiot. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17(11), 7771–7780 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(11), 5540 – 5550 (2022)

    Pu, B., Lu, Y., Chen, J., Li, S., Zhu, N., Wei, W., Li, K.: Mobileunet-fpn: A semantic segmentation model for fetal ultrasound four-chamber segmentation in edge computing environments. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 26(11), 5540 – 5550 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Pu, B., Wang, L., Yang, J., He, G., Dong, X., Li, S., Tan, Y., Chen, M., Jin, Z., Li, K., et al.: M3-uda: a new benchmark for unsupervised domain adaptive fetal cardiac structure detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, ...

    2024

  23. [32]

    Neurocomputing 579, 127443 (2024)

    He, J., Yang, L., Liang, B., Li, S., Xu, C.: Fetal cardiac ultrasound standard section detection model based on multitask learning and mixed attention mechanism. Neurocomputing 579, 127443 (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    Li, X., Tan, Y., Liang, B., Pu, B., Yang, J., Zhao, L., Kong, Y., Yang, L., Zhang, R., Li, H., et al.: Tkr-fsod: Fetal anatomical structure few-shot detection utilizing topological knowledge reasoning. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  25. [34]

    In: International Conference on Intelligent Computing, pp

    He, J., Yang, L., Zhu, Y., Li, D., Ding, Z., Lu, Y., Liang, B., Li, S.: Fetal cardiac structure detection using multi-task learning. In: International Conference on Intelligent Computing, pp. 405–419 (2024). Springer

    2024

  26. [35]

    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 24(1), 128 (2024)

    Liang, B., Peng, F., Luo, D., Zeng, Q., Wen, H., Zheng, B., Zou, Z., An, L., Wen, H., Wen, X., et al.: Automatic segmentation of 15 critical anatomical labels and measurements of cardiac axis and cardiothoracic ratio in fetal four chambers using nnu-netv2. BMC Medical Informat...

    2024

  27. [36]

    IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (2022)

    Lu, Y., Li, K., Pu, B., Tan, Y., Zhu, N.: A yolox-based deep instance segmentation neural network for cardiac anatomical structures in fetal ultrasound images. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    Tseng, C.-H., Chien, S.-J., Wang, P.-S., Lee, S.-J., Pu, B., Zeng, X.-J.: Real-time automatic m-mode echocardiography measurement with panel attention. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  29. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07717 (2023)

    Tseng, C.-H., Chien, S.-J., Wang, P.-S., Lee, S.-J., Hu, W.-H., Pu, B., Zeng, X.-j.: Real- time automatic m-mode echocardiography measurement with panel attention from local- to-global pixels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07717 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    Lu, Y., Tan, G., Pu, B., Wang, H., Liang, B., Li, K., Rajapakse, J.C.: Skgc: A general semantic-level knowledge guided classification framework for fetal congenital heart disease. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  31. [40]

    Future Generation Computer Systems 115, 825–836 (2021)

    Pu, B., Zhu, N., Li, K., Li, S.: Fetal cardiac cycle detection in multi-resource echocardiograms using hybrid classification framework. Future Generation Computer Systems 115, 825–836 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    Pu, B., Li, K., Chen, J., Lu, Y., Zeng, Q., Yang, J., Li, S.: Hfsccd: a hybrid neural network for fetal standard cardiac cycle detection in ultrasound videos. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2024)

    2024

  33. [42]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Yang, J., Lin, Y., Pu, B., Guo, J., Xu, X., Li, X.: Cardiacnet: Learning to reconstruct abnormalities for cardiac disease assessment from echocardiogram videos. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 293–311 (2024). Springer

    2024

  34. [43]

    Nature 580(7802), 252–256 (2020)

    Ouyang, D., He, B., Ghorbani, A., Yuan, N., Ebinger, J., Langlotz, C.P., Heidenreich, P.A., Harrington, R.A., Liang, D.H., Ashley, E.A., et al.: Video-based ai for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function. Nature 580(7802), 252–256 (2020)

    2020

  35. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12971 (2024)

    Zhao, T., Gu, Y., Yang, J., Usuyama, N., Lee, H.H., Naumann, T., Gao, J., Crabtree, A., Abel, J., Moung-Wen, C., et al.: Biomedparse: a biomedical foundation model for image parsing of everything everywhere all at once. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12971 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Knowledge-Based Systems 293, 111664 (2024)

    Liang, P., Chen, J., Chang, Q., Yao, L.: Rskd: Enhanced medical image segmentation via multi-layer, rank-sensitive knowledge distillation in vision transformer models. Knowledge-Based Systems 293, 111664 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    American journal of roentgenology 174(1), 71–74 (2000)

    Shiraishi, J., Katsuragawa, S., Ikezoe, J., Matsumoto, T., Kobayashi, T., Komatsu, K.-i., Matsui, M., Fujita, H., Kodera, Y., Doi, K.: Development of a digital image database for chest radiographs with and without a lung nodule: receiver operating characteristic analysis of ra...

    2000

  38. [47]

    Nature Communications 15(1), 654 (2024)

    Ma, J., He, Y., Li, F., Han, L., You, C., Wang, B.: Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications 15(1), 654 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.