A pipeline for developing deep learning prognostic prediction models in cardiac magnetic resonance image analysis
Rattachement africain : it, gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Patients and healthcare professionals require clinical prediction models to accurately guide healthcare decisions, although an awareness of the limitations of regression-based models has recently increased. Deep learning (DL) has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional regression-based models, due to its ability to effectively analyse heterogeneous types of data, ranging from numerical variables to medical images. Building a DL model presents various challenges, including conceptualizing the clinical problem, selecting appropriate variables and model architecture, and providing explainability. We propose a four-step pipeline for developing DL-based prediction models for cardiac magnetic resonance image analysis. This framework aims to support researchers in exploring DL application across the broad spectrum of cardiology, with a specific focus on advancement in arrhythmic risk prediction. The field of cardiomyopathy faces challenges when assessing arrhythmic risk due to the low accuracy of the current prediction models. Research efforts have focused on developing DL models able to predict major arrhythmic events in dilated cardiomyopathy. While the initial results are promising, further tests are needed before translating these models into clinical practice.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- A pipeline for developing deep learning prognostic prediction models in cardiac magnetic resonance image analysis
- Date Crossref
- 28/08/2025
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.