Cited by 110Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Standardized Evaluation System for Left Ventricular Segmentation Algorithms in 3D Echocardiography

Open access
Bernard, Olivier, Bosch, Johan G., Heyde, Brecht, Alessandrini, Martino, Barbosa, Daniel, Camarasu-Pop, Sorina, Cervenansky, Frederic, Valette, Sébastien +23 more·2016·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Real-time 3D Echocardiography (RT3DE) has been proven to be an accurate tool for left ventricular (LV) volume assessment. However, identification of the LV endocardium remains a challenging task, mainly because of the low tissue/blood contrast of the images combined with typical artifacts. Several semi and fully automatic algorithms have been proposed for segmenting the endocardium in RT3DE data in order to extract relevant clinical indices, but a systematic and fair comparison between such methods has so far been impossible due to the lack of a publicly available common database. Here, we introduce a standardized evaluation framework to reliably evaluate and compare the performance of the algorithms developed to segment the LV border in RT3DE. A database consisting of 45 multivendor cardiac ultrasound recordings acquired at different centers with corresponding reference measurements from three experts are made available. The algorithms from nine research groups were quantitatively evaluated and compared using the proposed online platform. The results showed that the best methods produce promising results with respect to the experts' measurements for the extraction of clinical indices, and that they offer good segmentation precision in terms of mean distance error in the context of the experts' variability range. The platform remains open for new submissions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2015.2503890

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The proposed segmentation and SR models become more robust against imaging artefacts, as shown by state-of-the-art results on the MICCAI'14 CETUS public benchmark.

    “We show that the proposed segmentation and SR models become more robust against imaging artefacts mentioned earlier which is underlined by our state-of-the-art results on the MICCAI'14 CETUS public benchmark [8].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 110

Authors
Bernard, O., Bosch, J. G., Heyde, B., Alessandrini, M., Barbosa, D., Camarasu-Pop, S., Cervenansky, F., Valette, S., Mirea, O., Bernier, M., Jodoin, P.-M., Domingos, J. S., Stebbing, R. V., Keraudren, K., Oktay, O., Caballero, J., Shi, W., Rueckert, D., Milletari, F., Ahmadi, S.-A., Smistad, E., Lindseth, F., van Stralen, M., Wang, C., Smedby, Ö., Donal, E., Monaghan, M., Papachristidis, A., Geleijnse, M. L., Galli, E., & D'hooge, J.
Affiliations
  • Centre de Recherche en Acquisition et Traitement de l'Image pour la Santé (FR)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • University of Minho (PT)
  • CREATIS, University of Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Biomedical Image Analysis Group, Imperial College London, U.K.
  • Computer Aided Medical Procedures, Technische Universität München, Germany
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Laboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l'Image (FR)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Lab on Cardiovascular Imaging & Dynamics, KU Leuven, Belgium
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2016-04
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
967-977
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2327084999
Cited by
110
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (985372, EP/K030523/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
left ventricle segmentation, real-time three-dimensional echocardiography, benchmark database, left ventricular volume, interobserver variability, algorithm comparison
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Heart Ventricles, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review