Cited by 758Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 34 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Anatomically Constrained Neural Networks (ACNNs): Application to Cardiac Image Enhancement and Segmentation

Open access
Oktay, Ozan, Ferrante, Enzo, Kamnitsas, Konstantinos, Heinrich, Mattias, Bai, Wenjia, Caballero, Jose, Cook, Stuart A., de Marvao, Antonio, Dawes, Timothy, O'Regan, Declan P., Kainz, Bernhard, Glocker, Ben, Rueckert, Daniel·2018·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Incorporation of prior knowledge about organ shape and location is key to improve performance of image analysis approaches. In particular, priors can be useful in cases where images are corrupted and contain artefacts due to limitations in image acquisition. The highly constrained nature of anatomical objects can be well captured with learning-based techniques. However, in most recent and promising techniques such as CNN-based segmentation it is not obvious how to incorporate such prior knowledge. State-of-the-art methods operate as pixel-wise classifiers where the training objectives do not incorporate the structure and inter-dependencies of the output. To overcome this limitation, we propose a generic training strategy that incorporates anatomical prior knowledge into CNNs through a new regularisation model, which is trained end-to-end. The new framework encourages models to follow the global anatomical properties of the underlying anatomy (e.g. shape, label structure) via learnt non-linear representations of the shape. We show that the proposed approach can be easily adapted to different analysis tasks (e.g. image enhancement, segmentation) and improve the prediction accuracy of the state-of-the-art models. The applicability of our approach is shown on multi-modal cardiac data sets and public benchmarks. In addition, we demonstrate how the learnt deep models of 3-D shapes can be interpreted and used as biomarkers for classification of cardiac pathologies.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes anatomically constrained neural networks (ACNN), a generic end-to-end training strategy that uses a stacked convolutional autoencoder and T-L network to impose learnt anatomical shape priors on CNN predictions. It demonstrates improved cardiac MR segmentation, 3D ultrasound segmentation, MR super-resolution, and pathology classification over state-of-the-art baselines.

Key findings

  • For cardiac cine-MR segmentation, ACNN-Seg improved endocardium Dice to .939 ± .017 versus .908 ± .021 for 2D-FCN, and myocardium Dice to .811 ± .027 versus .727 ± .046; mean surface distances were also lower (endocardium 1.37 ± 0.42 mm vs 2.07 ± 0.61 mm; myocardium 1.14 ± 0.22 mm vs 1.58 ± 0.44 mm), with p < 0.001 for Dice and mean distance.
  • On the CETUS’14 3D-US benchmark, ACNN-Seg achieved end-diastole Dice .912 ± .023 versus .906 ± .026 for FCN and .894 ± .041 for BEAS, and end-systole Dice .873 ± .051 versus .872 ± .050 for FCN and .856 ± .057 for BEAS; Hausdorff distance at ED was 6.96 ± 1.75 mm versus 11.94 ± 9.46 mm for FCN.
  • For cardiac MR super-resolution, ACNN-SR achieved SSIM .796 ± .041 versus .783 ± .046 for SR-CNN, clinician MOS scores of 4.36 ± 0.62 and 4.25 ± .68 versus 3.59 ± 1.05 and 3.85 ± .70, and inference time .06 s versus .29 s.
  • For pathology classification, T-L codes gave 83.3% accuracy from ED phase and 91.6% with ED+ES, compared with PCA codes at 76.6% and 86.6%, using 10-fold cross-validation on 60 CMR sequences.

Methods

  • ACNN adds a shape-regularisation loss to standard CNN training: segmentation uses cross-entropy plus a low-dimensional shape loss and weight decay, while super-resolution uses smooth ℓ1 reconstruction plus a global shape loss and weight decay. The regulariser is a stacked convolutional autoencoder and T-L network that learns 64-dimensional anatomical shape/label representations; it is used only during training, not inference.
  • Data include the UK Digital Heart Project dataset of 1200 cine 2D stack and 3D HR cardiac MR image pairs, split into 900 training, 100 validation, and 200 testing for segmentation, and 1000 training / 200 testing for super-resolution; CETUS’14 with 45 3D+time ultrasound sequences from 15 healthy subjects and 30 patients, evaluated blinded on 30 test sequences; and ACDC MICCAI’17 with 20 cine stacks per class for classification.
  • Comparisons include 2D-FCN, 3D-UNet, AE-Seg, 3D-Seg, BEAS, FCN, and SR-CNN; metrics include Dice, mean and Hausdorff surface distances, SSIM, mean opinion score, ejection-fraction correlation/bias, and classification accuracy, with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for top methods.

Limitations

  • The paper states that 3D-US training data were limited to 15 image sequences; segmentation results could improve by segmenting ED and ES frames simultaneously or using temporal information such as optical flow; classification accuracy could improve by training the AE and T-L models with a classification objective; and achieving the best possible segmentation accuracy was not the main focus.
  • The paper also notes that the T-L regulariser is used only at training time, that latent codes are expected to be correlated because the decoder merges codes across spatial dimensions, and that a variational autoencoder was not used because the K-L term would reduce representation power and generative sampling was not needed.
  • Evident from the text: the method is evaluated on cardiac applications only, and the authors state future work will extend ACNN to tasks such as human pose estimation and landmark localisation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2017.2743464

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 34
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 5
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
46 of 46
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The high-resolution motion-free cardiac MR images provide an appropriate reference for evaluating segmentation performance on low-resolution 2D stacks.

    “Since the ground-truth information is obtained from the HR motionfree images, the experimental results are expected to reflect the performance of the method with respect to an appropriate reference.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A perfect mapping between intensity and label spaces is practically not achievable.

    “Since a perfect mapping between the intensity and label spaces is practically not achievable, the T-L learnt codes are expected to be more representative due to the inclusion of additional information.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Anatomical objects in medical images are naturally more constrained in shape and location than objects in natural images.

    “Inclusion of priors in medical imaging could potentially have much more impact compared to their use in natural image analysis since anatomical objects in medical images are naturally more constrained in terms of their shape and location.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The proposed ACNN is one of the earliest studies demonstrating the use of convolutional autoencoder networks to learn anatomical shape variations from medical images.

    “More importantly, to the best of our knowledge, this is one of the earliest studies demonstrating the use of convolutional autoencoder networks to learn anatomical shape variations from medical images.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The HR ground-truth label maps projected from HR image space are an accurate reference for segmentation evaluation.

    “The corresponding groundtruth label maps, however, are projected from the HR image space, which are annotated in the HR image grid.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The clinical HR images used as reference for SR evaluation are accurate ground truth.

    “The quality of the upsampled images is evaluated in terms of SSIM metric [47] between the clinical HR image data and reconstructed HR images.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two expert cardiologists' MOS ratings reliably quantify image quality.

    “Two expert cardiologists were asked to rate the upsampled images from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent) based on the accuracy of the reconstructed LV boundary and geometry.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The CETUS web platform evaluation is a valid blinded benchmark for segmentation accuracy.

    “The experimental results were evaluated in a blinded fashion by uploading the generated segmentations from separate 30 sequences into the CETUS web platform.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 2D stack LR images are a commonly used acquisition protocol for cardiac imaging.

    “only the 2D stack LR images are used, which is a commonly used acquisition protocol for cardiac imaging”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The LV blood pool is larger than the myocardium.

    “due to the larger size of the LV blood pool compared to the myocardium.”
10 of 10

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Cross-entropy and Euclidean gradients have their roles reversed

    Minor

    The text defines cross-entropy as the segmentation-reconstruction loss and Euclidean distance as the loss matching the predictor's latent codes. It then assigns the predictor-matching role to the first gradient, ∂L x, and the reconstruction role to the second, ∂L h-the reverse of those definitions.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 60 references

7 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 758

Metadata

Authors
Oktay, O., Ferrante, E., Kamnitsas, K., Heinrich, M., Bai, W., Caballero, J., Cook, S. A., de Marvao, A., Dawes, T., O'Regan, D. P., Kainz, B., Glocker, B., & Rueckert, D.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2018-02
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
384-395
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2620296437
Cited by
751
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 135 · 2020: 118 · 2019: 119 · 2018: 47
FWCI
32.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • EPSRC Program (EP/P001009/1)
  • British Heart Foundation, U.K. (PG/12/27/29489)
  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre-based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
anatomical prior knowledge, cardiac image segmentation, biomarkers, artifact reduction
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Heart, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cardiomyopathies, Databases, Factual, Neural Networks, Computer, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Cardiac Imaging Techniques

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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