4.7 Article

Atrial scar quantification via multi-scale CNN in the graph-cuts framework

Journal

MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2019.101595

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; Left atrium; LGE MRI; Scar segmentation; Graph learning; Multi-scale CNN

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61971142]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [17JC14 01600]
  3. British Heart Foundation [PG/16/78/32402]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (LGE MRI) appears to be a promising alternative for scar assessment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Automating the quantification and analysis of atrial scars can be challenging due to the low image quality. In this work, we propose a fully automated method based on the graph-cuts framework, where the potentials of the graph are learned on a surface mesh of the left atrium (LA) using a multi-scale convolutional neural network (MS-CNN). For validation, we have included fifty-eight images with manual delineations. MS-CNN, which can efficiently incorporate both the local and global texture information of the images, has been shown to evidently improve the segmentation accuracy of the proposed graph-cuts based method. The segmentation could be further improved when the contribution between the t-link and n-link weights of the graph is balanced. The proposed method achieves a mean accuracy of 0.856 +/- 0.033 and mean Dice score of 0.702 +/- 0.071 for LA scar quantification. Compared to the conventional methods, which are based on the manual delineation of LA for initialization, our method is fully automatic and has demonstrated significantly better Dice score and accuracy (p < 0.01). The method is promising and can be potentially useful in diagnosis and prognosis of AF. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available