Cited by 2,431Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Deep learning techniques for automatic MRI cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved?

Open access
Bernard, Olivier, Lalande, Alain, Zotti, Clement, Cervenansky, Frederick, Yang, Xin, Heng, Pheng-Ann, Cetin, Irem, Lekadir, Karim +29 more·2018·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Delineation of the left ventricular cavity, myocardium, and right ventricle from cardiac magnetic resonance images (multi-slice 2-D cine MRI) is a common clinical task to establish diagnosis. The automation of the corresponding tasks has thus been the subject of intense research over the past decades. In this paper, we introduce the "Automatic Cardiac Diagnosis Challenge" dataset (ACDC), the largest publicly available and fully annotated dataset for the purpose of cardiac MRI (CMR) assessment. The dataset contains data from 150 multi-equipments CMRI recordings with reference measurements and classification from two medical experts. The overarching objective of this paper is to measure how far state-of-the-art deep learning methods can go at assessing CMRI, i.e., segmenting the myocardium and the two ventricles as well as classifying pathologies. In the wake of the 2017 MICCAI-ACDC challenge, we report results from deep learning methods provided by nine research groups for the segmentation task and four groups for the classification task. Results show that the best methods faithfully reproduce the expert analysis, leading to a mean value of 0.97 correlation score for the automatic extraction of clinical indices and an accuracy of 0.96 for automatic diagnosis. These results clearly open the door to highly accurate and fully automatic analysis of cardiac CMRI. We also identify scenarios for which deep learning methods are still failing. Both the dataset and detailed results are publicly available online, while the platform will remain open for new submissions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2018.2837502

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 ACDC dataset contains two labelled 3D cardiac scans from 100 patients.

    “This dataset contains two labelled 3D cardiac scans from 100 patients.”

    From rNCA: Self-Repairing Segmentation Masks (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Evaluation Framework (section III, page unavailable) says that the 100-patient training set provides manual references for end-diastolic and end-systolic images. It also says ACDC includes 50 test patients, whose manual references are kept private. The claim describes the labelled training set but omits that qualification, making 100 sound like the size of the full dataset. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The ACDC dataset was used for myocardium segmentation.

    “For myocardium segmentation, we used the ACDC dataset [47].”

    From rNCA: Self-Repairing Segmentation Masks (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

  • Zhou et al. presented U-Net++, a new, broader neural net topology for image processing, to take categorization further.

    “Zhou et al. presented U-Net ++ , a new, broader neural net topology for image processing, to take categorization further and farther [68], [70], [71].”

    From A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (2023) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Evaluated Architectures section discusses U-Net and several variants, but does not mention Zhou et al. or U-Net++. Searches for both names found no passage describing the claimed topology or its contribution to classification. No page number was available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The training dataset of SAM, SA-1B, contains 11 million photos, including natural locations, objects, and scenes, but without any medical images.

    “The training dataset of SAM, i.e., SA-1B 5 contains 11 million photos, including natural locations, objects, and scenes, but without any medical images.”

    From Segment anything model for medical images? (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

  • ACDC is a large publicly available and fully annotated dataset for cardiac MRI assessment, consisting of 150 patients divided into 5 categories.

    “Automatic Cardiac Diagnosis Challenge (ACDC) [111] is a large publicly available and fully annotated dataset for cardiac MRI assessment.”

    From Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [111]

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. M. Havaei, N. Guizard, H. Larochelle, and P.-M. Jodoin, "Deep learning trends for focal brain pathology segmentation in mri," in book Machine Learning for Health Informatics, State-of-the-art and future challenges, 2015, pp. 125-148, LNAI 9605, Springer.
  2. F. I. Marcus, W. J. McKenna, D. Sherrill, C. Basso, B. Bauce, D. A. Bluemke, H. Calkins, D. Corrado, M. G. Cox et al., "Diagnosis of ar- rhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy / dysplasia," Circulation, vol. 121, no. 13, pp. 1533-1541, 2010.
  3. I. Cetin, G. Sanroma, S. E. Petersen, S. Napel, O. Camara, M. ngel Gonzlez Ballester, and K. Lekadir, "A radiomics approach to computer- aided diagnosis in cardiac cine-mri," in Proc. STACOM-MICCAI, LNCS, volume 10663, 2017, pp. 82-90.
  4. J. Bogaert, S. Dymarkowski, A. Taylor, and V. Muthurangu, "Cardiac Function," in Clinical Cardiac MRI. Springer, 2012, pp. 109-168.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernard, O., Lalande, A., Zotti, C., Cervenansky, F., Yang, X., Heng, P.-A., Cetin, I., Lekadir, K., Camara, O., Gonzalez Ballester, M. A., Sanroma, G., Napel, S., Petersen, S., Tziritas, G., Grinias, E., Khened, M., Kollerathu, V. A., Krishnamurthi, G., Rohé, M.-M., Pennec, X., Sermesant, M., Isensee, F., Jäger, P., Maier-Hein, K. H., Full, P. M., Wolf, I., Engelhardt, S., Baumgartner, C. F., Koch, L. M., Wolterink, J. M., Išgum, I., Jang, Y., Hong, Y., Patravali, J., Jain, S., Humbert, O., & Jodoin, P.-M.
Affiliations
  • Lyon 1 Université (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Computer Science Department, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada
  • University of Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1044, INSA-Lyon, University of Lyon 1, Lyon, France
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
  • Barcelona Centre for New Medical Technologies, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Crete (GR)
  • Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IN)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Inria-Asclepios Project, Sophia Antipolis, France
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
  • Department of Computer Science, Mannheim University of Applied Sciences, Mannheim, Germany
  • Technische Hochschule Mannheim (DE)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
  • Qure.ai Technologies Private Limited (India) (IN)
  • PHEN X - Physiopathologie, Environnement et Exposome (FR)
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2018-11
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
2514-2525
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2804047627
Cited by
2,431
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 436 · 2025: 557 · 2024: 415 · 2023: 308 · 2022: 271 · 2021: 205 · 2020: 146 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
FWCI
55.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Heart Foundation (PG/14/89/31194)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
cardiac MRI, myocardium segmentation, left ventricle segmentation, right ventricle segmentation, ACDC dataset, cine MRI, clinical indicators, deep learning segmentation
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Female, Heart, Heart Diseases, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Databases, Factual, 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.

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