Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

IntelliCardiac: An Intelligent Platform for Cardiac Image Segmentation and Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read IntelliCardiac argues that a web-based cardiac MRI platform can segment heart structures at 92.6% mean Dice and classify five disease categories at 98% accuracy, outperforming prior combined segmentation-and-classification systems on the…

desk verdict The platform is real and the segmentation numbers are plausible, but the 98% classification accuracy is not trustworthy as a held-out result because the paper never shows a validation split and describes the SVM's features inconsistently. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03838 v2 pith:RMITUZID submitted 2025-05-05 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Ting Yu Tsai , An Yu , Meghana Spurthi Maadugundu , Ishrat Jahan Mohima , Umme Habiba Barsha , Mei-Hwa F. Chen , Balakrishnan Prabhakaran , Ming-Ching Chang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords cardiacMRIimagesegmentationdiseaseclassificationtwo-stageclassifierweb-basedplatformACDCdataset3DU-Netmyocardialwallthickness
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

The paper tries to establish that a single web-based platform can take a 4D cardiac MRI scan, automatically segment the right ventricle, left ventricle, and myocardium, and then classify the patient into one of five diagnostic categories with accuracy sufficient for clinical screening. On the public ACDC dataset the authors report a mean Dice score of 92.6% for segmentation and 98% accuracy for the five-way classification after a two-stage classifier refines ambiguous cases. The significance, if true, is that integration need not cost accuracy: one tool can handle visualization, segmentation, diagnosis, and doctor-patient communication, whereas existing web platforms mostly offer visualization alone and prior combined AI pipelines trail these numbers. The paper also isolates which design choices carry the gain, namely ROI-focused preprocessing, a dynamically weighted Focal Dice Loss, and a specialist SVM that re-decides only MINF/DCM cases using two myocardial wall-thickness features.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-module pipeline. Segmentation uses a 3D residual U-Net with four ResBlock encoder layers, trilinear upsampling, skip connections, and a four-channel output; its loss is a Focal Dice Loss with per-class weights updated each epoch to the inverse of the previous epoch's Dice, so the model concentrates on underperforming classes. An ROI preprocessing step locates the left-ventricle center from temporal intensity variation and circular Hough detection, then crops a fixed 128x128 patch with logical-depth cropping to cover variable temporal depths. From the resulting ED/ES masks, the pipeline extracts 20 features, including volumes, ejection fractions, volume ratios, and myocardial wall thickness statistics. Classification is a two-stage decision: a Random Forest on all 20 features makes the initial five-way call, and an RBF SVM, trained only on the maximum of slice-wise mean wall thickness and the mean of slice-wise standard deviations at end-systole, rewrites predictions that were initially MINF or DCM. That refinement is what lifts accuracy from 92% to 98%.

What would settle it

Re-run the classification module on the same 50-patient ACDC test split while withholding all test labels until after the SVM refinement features are selected on a training or validation split; if final accuracy then fails to exceed the initial Random Forest's 92%, the reported 98% is explained by test-set-guided tuning rather than genuine generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that combining a 3D residual U-Net segmentation module with a two-stage classification pipeline on top of segmentation-derived features yields state-of-the-art results on the ACDC benchmark: an average Dice score of 92.56% (RV 92.27%, Myo 90.33%, LV 95.09%) and a final classification accuracy of 98% across DCM, MINF, HCM, ARV, and normal cases. The classification gain comes from a specific refinement step: a Random Forest first labels each case, and an RBF-kernel SVM re-judges only the cases predicted as MINF or DCM using two myocardial wall-thickness statistics at end-systole, replacing those labels. The paper attributes the segmentation margin to logical-depth cropping, ROI detection via temporal-standard-deviation plus circular Hough voting, dynamically weighted Focal Dice Loss, and largest-connected-component post-processing. It reports these numbers beat the comparison methods listed in Tables II and III, including nnU-Net and nnFormer for segmentation and combined segmentation-classification baselines for accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The 98% classification accuracy relies on the assumption that the two-stage design, particularly the choice of the two myocardial wall-thickness features and the rule that only initial MINF/DCM predictions get refined, was fixed before the 50-patient test set was examined, with no test information guiding feature selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A complete MRI upload-to-report run takes about 3 seconds per patient, so the same pipeline can support interactive use rather than offline batch analysis.
  • The segmentation module's highest margin over baselines is in the right ventricle and myocardium, the structures whose geometry drives the downstream MINF/DCM distinction.
  • Combining segmentation and classification in one web platform means the same system can serve patients, doctors, and researchers, with secure sharing and doctor comment workflows.
  • The dynamically weighted Focal Dice Loss, which reweights classes by inverse previous-epoch Dice, is proposed as a general fix for class imbalance in 3D medical segmentation.
  • On ACDC, the full pipeline reports higher segmentation Dice and higher classification accuracy than the combined-task baselines listed in Table III.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 98% figure is a single-dataset result on 50 ACDC test patients; before clinical use, the same fixed pipeline would need validation on an external cohort to test whether the two refinement features generalize.
  • The refinement recipe is transferable: any diagnostic pair with similar bulk-volume profiles but distinct localized shape statistics could use the same broad-classifier-plus-specialist-SVM pattern.
  • If the features were selected after inspecting test confusion, the honest comparison is the initial classifier's 92%, and the platform's real contribution would be integration rather than the reported accuracy gain.
  • The doctor-feedback feature could become a data-collection loop for retraining, but the paper does not measure whether that loop improves future models.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents IntelliCardiac, a web-based platform for cardiac cine-MRI segmentation and disease classification. It combines a 3D residual U-Net segmentation model with a two-stage classifier (random forest followed by an RBF-SVM expert refinement) and evaluates both tasks on the ACDC dataset (100 training, 50 test patients). The authors report a mean Dice score of 92.56% for segmentation and 98% classification accuracy across five diagnostic categories, and they claim these results outperform prior methods that integrate segmentation and classification. The paper also describes the platform's architecture, user roles, and deployment details.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reproducible, the contribution is valuable: an open-source, web-based tool that addresses segmentation and classification together, with a clearly described interface and a 4D processing pipeline, evaluated on the public ACDC benchmark. The two-stage refinement idea, using clinically motivated myocardial wall thickness features to separate DCM from MINF, is reasonable and potentially useful. However, the scientific claims currently rest on sparse empirical evidence: no error bars or repeated runs, no described validation split for classifier design, and an inconsistent specification of the refinement features. With these added, the paper could provide a credible and useful reference for integrated cardiac MRI analysis platforms.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-C2 vs §IV-B] The two myocardial wall thickness (MWT) features used by the expert SVM are described inconsistently. Section III-C2 states the SVM uses the maximum of slice-wise mean wall thickness and the mean of slice-wise standard deviations measured during the end-systolic phase, while Section IV-B and the text around Figure 5 state the features are the mean of slice-wise standard deviations of MWT and the standard deviation of slice-wise mean MWT at end-diastole. This is a load-bearing discrepancy: it makes the classifier design unreproducible and prevents verification of the reported 98% accuracy. The authors must specify the exact feature definitions, the cardiac phase used, and the feature-selection rule that led to these two features.
  2. [§IV-B (Classification Results)] No validation split or model-selection protocol is reported for the two-stage classifier. The initial classifier is described as obtaining 92% accuracy and the final pipeline 98% on the 50-patient test set; on 50 patients, that is a difference of about three corrected predictions. If the random forest hyperparameters, the choice of the refinement features, the MINF/DCM-only refinement rule, or the SVM hyperparameters (C, gamma) were selected after inspecting the test-set predictions, the 98% figure is not a held-out accuracy. The paper should report the validation procedure, the hyperparameter ranges considered, and the decision rule for selecting the refinement features.
  3. [Table III and Classification Comparison] The claim of 'outperforming existing state-of-the-art methods' is not supported by the comparison set. Table III compares against Wolterink (2018), Wibowo (2022), Zheng (2019), and Khened (2018), all of which predate many recent ACDC classification results, and no statistical significance tests or confidence intervals are reported for the classification accuracy difference. The paper should either include current state-of-the-art methods that perform both segmentation and classification on ACDC, or temper the claim to 'outperforms the compared methods.'
  4. [Table II and Segmentation Results] The segmentation results are reported as point estimates without standard deviations, ranges, or patient-level variability. Given that the mean Dice differences between IntelliCardiac and the nearest comparator (nnFormer, EMCAD) are small (0.4–0.5 points), the absence of variability measures makes it difficult to judge whether the improvements are meaningful. The authors should report error bars or per-fold/per-patient statistics and describe how the segmentation model was selected with respect to validation data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] The phrase 'bridges the hole between AI research and real-world deployment' should be 'bridges the gap between AI research and real-world deployment.'
  2. [§III-B2] In the decoder description, 'linked with the unsampled feature maps' should be 'linked with the upsampled feature maps.'
  3. [§III-B3] The sentence 'We have a contribution lies in the dynamically weighted Focal Dice Loss' should be rewritten, for example as 'Our contribution includes the dynamically weighted Focal Dice Loss.'
  4. [§III-B3] The sentence 'This immediately address class imbalance and improve segmentation uniformity, this encourages the model to give priority to minority or underperforming buildings' has subject-verb agreement issues and should read 'This addresses class imbalance and improves segmentation uniformity, encouraging the model to give priority to minority or underperforming structures.'
  5. [§III-C2] The phrase 'avoids minimizes overfitting' is ungrammatical; it should be 'avoids overfitting' or 'minimizes overfitting.'
  6. [Figure 5] The caption says 'Confusion matrices before (right) and after (left) expert refinement,' but the usual convention is to present the initial state on the left and the refined state on the right; please clarify the ordering or reorder the panels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported segmentation and classification accuracies are empirical results measured against the public ACDC benchmark, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

IntelliCardiac's central claims are empirical: a 3D residual U-Net segmentation model and a two-stage random-forest/SVM classifier are trained and evaluated on the publicly available ACDC dataset, with Dice scores and classification accuracies reported against a separate 50-patient test set. The segmentation loss, preprocessing, post-processing, and classifier design are all described as methodological choices rather than as analytical consequences of the target results. The feature set is explicitly inspired by an external reference (Isensee et al. [10]), and the comparisons in Tables II and III are against independent published methods; none of the comparisons rely on a self-citation chain. The two-stage classifier is a legitimate two-step pipeline: the random forest produces initial predictions, and the SVM refines only MINF/DCM predictions using two myocardial wall thickness features. The final 98% accuracy is presented as a measured outcome on ACDC test data, not as a quantity that is definitionally equal to the classifier's training objective or to any input feature. There are no equations in the paper that reduce to one another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main concerns raised by the paper itself are reproducibility issues rather than circularity: the paper does not describe a validation split or hyperparameter selection procedure, and the description of the SVM's two features is inconsistent (Section III-C2 says end-systolic mean of slice-wise standard deviations and maximum of slice-wise means, while Section IV-B says end-diastolic mean of slice-wise standard deviations and standard deviation of slice-wise means). These inconsistencies create a risk that the 98% figure reflects test-set-guided model selection, but that is a data-leakage or validity concern, not a definitional circularity. Because the core results are benchmarked against independent external data and external methods, the circularity score is 0.

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

The central performance claims depend on a number of hand-chosen hyperparameters (patch size, loss exponent, training schedule, RF and SVM settings) and domain assumptions about anatomy and the benchmark. No new physical or computational entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • ROI patch size = 128 x 128
    Fixed-size patch extracted around detected LV center; chosen by hand rather than optimized or varied in the paper.
  • Focal Dice exponent beta = not reported
    The Focal Dice loss uses an exponent beta; its value and the class weight update rule are not reported, yet they shape segmentation and downstream classification.
  • Segmentation training schedule = 300 epochs, batch size 4, initial LR 5e-4
    Hyperparameters chosen by hand with cosine annealing; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Random Forest hyperparameters = not reported
    The initial classifier is a random forest, but tree count, depth, and related settings are not given.
  • SVM RBF hyperparameters (C, gamma) = not reported
    The refinement SVM uses an RBF kernel; C and gamma are not reported, and they determine which MINF/DCM cases are corrected.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ACDC ground-truth labels are accurate and the 100/50 train/test split is an unbiased sample.
    All training and evaluation rely on this public dataset; the paper does not audit label quality or acquisition heterogeneity.
  • domain assumption The left ventricle has a roughly circular cross-section in the axial slices used for ROI detection.
    The preprocessing uses Canny edges and Circular Hough Transform under this assumption (Section III-B1); severely deformed ventricles could break localization.
  • domain assumption Myocardial wall thickness statistics at end-systole separate DCM from MINF.
    The expert SVM refinement relies on this clinical prior (Section III-C2); if the prior fails in a subgroup, misclassification would persist.
  • standard math Deep learning components (ResBlocks, U-Net, focal Dice loss, LCCA) work as described in the cited literature.
    The paper does not re-derive these methods; it invokes them as background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IntelliCardiac: An Intelligent Platform for Cardiac Image Segmentation and Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMITUZID

@misc{pith2026250503838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IntelliCardiac: An Intelligent Platform for Cardiac Image Segmentation and Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMITUZID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03838}
}
read the original abstract

Precise and effective processing of cardiac imaging data is critical for the identification and management of the cardiovascular diseases. We introduce IntelliCardiac, a comprehensive, web-based medical image processing platform for the automatic segmentation of 4D cardiac images and disease classification, utilizing an AI model trained on the publicly accessible ACDC dataset. The system, intended for patients, cardiologists, and healthcare professionals, offers an intuitive interface and uses deep learning models to identify essential heart structures and categorize cardiac diseases. The system supports analysis of both the right and left ventricles as well as myocardium, and then classifies patient's cardiac images into five diagnostic categories: dilated cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, right ventricular abnormality, and no disease. IntelliCardiac combines a deep learning-based segmentation model with a two-step classification pipeline. The segmentation module gains an overall accuracy of 92.6%. The classification module, trained on characteristics taken from segmented heart structures, achieves 98% accuracy in five categories. These results exceed the performance of the existing state-of-the-art methods that integrate both segmentation and classification models. IntelliCardiac, which supports real-time visualization, workflow integration, and AI-assisted diagnostics, has great potential as a scalable, accurate tool for clinical decision assistance in cardiac imaging and diagnosis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of IntelliCardiac system pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed AI model architecture consisting of segmentation (top) and two-stage classification (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. User interface overview of IntelliCardiac: the left shows the doctor’s view with patient results and diagnostic insights; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Segmentation and classification results from pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confusion matrices before (right) and after (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Maier-Hein, Peter M

    Olivier Bernard, Alain Lalande, Clement Zotti, Frederick Cervenan- sky, Xin Yang, Pheng-Ann Heng, Irem Cetin, Karim Lekadir, Oscar Camara, Miguel Angel Gonzalez Ballester, Gerard Sanroma, Sandy Napel, Steffen Petersen, Georgios Tziritas, Elias Grinias, Mahendra Khened, Varghese Alex Kollerathu, Ganapathy Krishnamurthi, Marc- Michel Roh ´e, Xavier Pennec, ...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Random Forests

    Leo Breiman. Random Forests. Mach. Learn., 45(1):5–32, Oct 2001

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    A Computational Approach to Edge Detection

    John Canny. A Computational Approach to Edge Detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , PAMI- 8(6):679–698, 1986

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    Swin-Unet: Unet-Like Pure Transformer for Medical Image Segmentation

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. Swin-Unet: Unet-Like Pure Transformer for Medical Image Segmentation. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2022 Workshops, pages 205–218, Cham, 2023. Springer Nature Switzerland

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A Cloud-Based System for Automated AI Image Analysis and Reporting

    Neil Chatterjee, Jeffrey Duda, James Gee, Ameena Elahi, Kristen Martin, Van Doan, Hannah Liu, Matthew Maclean, Daniel Rader, Arijitt Borthakur, et al. A Cloud-Based System for Automated AI Image Analysis and Reporting. Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine , 38(1):368–379, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou

    Jieneng Chen, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Xiangde Luo, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, Le Lu, Alan L. Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. TransUNet: Transformers Make Strong Encoders for Medical Image Segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Dillencourt, Hanan Samet, and Markku Tamminen

    Michael B. Dillencourt, Hanan Samet, and Markku Tamminen. A general approach to connected-component labeling for arbitrary image representations. J. ACM, 39(2):253–280, Apr 1992

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Use of the Hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures

    Richard O Duda and Peter E Hart. Use of the Hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures. Communications of the ACM , 15(1):11–15, 1972

    work page 1972

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Hearst, S.T

    M.A. Hearst, S.T. Dumais, E. Osuna, J. Platt, and B. Scholkopf. Support vector machines. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications , 13(4):18–28, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Jaeger, Peter M

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F. Jaeger, Peter M. Full, Ivo Wolf, Sandy Engel- hardt, and Klaus H. Maier-Hein. Automatic Cardiac Disease Assess- ment on cine-MRI via Time-Series Segmentation and Domain Specific Features. In Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart. ACD...

    2018

  3. [11]

    nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation

    Fabian Isensee, Paul F Jaeger, Simon A A Kohl, Jens Petersen, and Klaus H Maier-Hein. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods, 18(2):203—211, Feb 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Karamitsos, Jane M

    Theodoros D. Karamitsos, Jane M. Francis, Saul Myerson, Joseph B. Selvanayagam, and Stefan Neubauer. The Role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Heart Failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 54(15):1407–1424, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Densely Connected Fully Convolutional Network for Short-Axis Cardiac Cine MR Image Segmentation and Heart Diagnosis Using Random Forest

    Mahendra Khened, Varghese Alex, and Ganapathy Krishnamurthi. Densely Connected Fully Convolutional Network for Short-Axis Cardiac Cine MR Image Segmentation and Heart Diagnosis Using Random Forest. In Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart. ACDC and MMWHS Ch...

    2018

  6. [14]

    3D Slicer: A Platform for Subject-Specific Image Analysis, Visualization, and Clinical Support

    Ron Kikinis, Steve D Pieper, and Kirby G V osburgh. 3D Slicer: A Platform for Subject-Specific Image Analysis, Visualization, and Clinical Support. In Intraoperative Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, pages 277–289. Springer, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreas

    Ozan Oktay, Jo Schlemper, Loic Le Folgoc, Matthew Lee, Mattias Heinrich, Kazunari Misawa, Kensaku Mori, Steven McDonagh, Nils Y Hammerla, Bernhard Kainz, et al. Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gernand, Jeffery A

    Yimu Pan, Sitao Zhang, Alison D. Gernand, Jeffery A. Goldstein, and James Z. Wang. S2S2: Semantic Stacking for Robust Semantic Segmentation in Medical Imaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13156 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Circular hough transform

    Simon Just Kjeldgaard Pedersen. Circular hough transform. Aalborg University, Vision, Graphics, and Interactive Systems, 123(6):2–3, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    SegFormer3D: an Efficient Transformer for 3D Medical Image Segmentation

    Shehan Perera, Pouyan Navard, and Alper Yilmaz. SegFormer3D: an Efficient Transformer for 3D Medical Image Segmentation. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 4981–4988, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, Jun

    2024

  11. [19]

    EM- CAD: Efficient Multi-Scale Convolutional Attention Decoding for Med- ical Image Segmentation

    Md Mostafijur Rahman, Mustafa Munir, and Radu Marculescu. EM- CAD: Efficient Multi-Scale Convolutional Attention Decoding for Med- ical Image Segmentation. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 11769–11779, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    U-Net: Convolu- tional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-Net: Convolu- tional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015 , pages 234–241. Springer International Publishing, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Samet and M

    H. Samet and M. Tamminen. Efficient component labeling of images of arbitrary dimension represented by linear bintrees. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 10(4):579–586, 1988

    1988

  14. [22]

    Spatiotemporal Repre- sentation Learning for Short and Long Medical Image Time Series

    Chengzhi Shen, Martin J Menten, Hrvoje Bogunovi ´c, Ursula Schmidt- Erfurth, Hendrik PN Scholl, Sobha Sivaprasad, Andrew Lotery, Daniel Rueckert, Paul Hager, and Robbie Holland. Spatiotemporal Repre- sentation Learning for Short and Long Medical Image Time Series. In Medical I...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sudre, Wenqi Li, Tom Vercauteren, Sebastien Ourselin, and M

    Carole H. Sudre, Wenqi Li, Tom Vercauteren, Sebastien Ourselin, and M. Jorge Cardoso. Generalised Dice Overlap as a Deep Learning Loss Function for Highly Unbalanced Segmentations. In Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Pei Wang and Albert C. S. Chung. Focal Dice Loss and Image Dilation for Brain Tumor Segmentation. In Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support, Cham, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Cardiac Disease Classification Using Two-Dimensional Thickness and Few-Shot Learning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Image Segmentation

    Adi Wibowo, Pandji Triadyaksa, Aris Sugiharto, Eko Adi Sarwoko, Fajar Agung Nugroho, Hideo Arai, and Masateru Kawakubo. Cardiac Disease Classification Using Two-Dimensional Thickness and Few-Shot Learning Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Image Segmentation. Journal of Imagi...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Wolterink, Tim Leiner, Max A

    Jelmer M. Wolterink, Tim Leiner, Max A. Viergever, and Ivana I ˇsgum. Automatic segmentation and disease classification using cardiac cine MR images. In Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart, pages 101–110. Springer Verlag, 2018

  19. [27]

    Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs)

    World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). World Health Organization Fact Sheets , Jun 2023. Accessed: 2025-04-13

    2023

  20. [28]

    Explainable car- diac pathology classification on cine MRI with motion characterization by semi-supervised learning of apparent flow

    Qiao Zheng, Herv ´e Delingette, and Nicholas Ayache. Explainable car- diac pathology classification on cine MRI with motion characterization by semi-supervised learning of apparent flow. Medical Image Analysis , 56:80–95, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    nnFormer: V olumetric Medical Image Segmentation via a 3D Transformer

    Hong-Yu Zhou, Jiansen Guo, Yinghao Zhang, Xiaoguang Han, Lequan Yu, Liansheng Wang, and Yizhou Yu. nnFormer: V olumetric Medical Image Segmentation via a 3D Transformer. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32:4036–4045, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Open Health Imaging Foundation Viewer: An Extensible Open-Source Framework for Build- ing Web-Based Imaging Applications to Support Cancer Research

    Erik Ziegler, Trinity Urban, Danny Brown, James Petts, Steve D Pieper, Rob Lewis, Chris Hafey, and Gordon J Harris. Open Health Imaging Foundation Viewer: An Extensible Open-Source Framework for Build- ing Web-Based Imaging Applications to Support Cancer Research. JCO clinical...

    2020

  23. [2024]

    IEEE Computer Society

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.