Segmentation of cardiac magnetic resonance images (MRI) is crucial for the analysis and assessment of cardiac function, helping to diagnose and treat various cardiovascular diseases. Most recent techniques rely on deep learning and usually require an extensive amount of labeled data. To overcome this problem, few-shot learning has the capability of reducing data dependency on labeled data. In this work, we introduce a new method that merges few-shot learning with a U-Net architecture and Gaussian Process Emulators (GPEs), enhancing data integration from a support set for improved performance. GPEs are trained to learn the relation between the support images and the corresponding masks in latent space, facilitating the segmentation of unseen query images given only a small labeled support set at inference. We test our model with the M&Ms-2 public dataset to assess its ability to segment the heart in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging from different orientations, and compare it with state-of-the-art unsupervised and few-shot methods. Our architecture shows higher DICE coefficients compared to these methods, especially in the more challenging setups where the size of the support set is considerably small.

Late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is widely established to assess the viability of myocardial tissue of patients after acute myocardial infarction (MI). We propose the Cascading Refinement CNN (CaRe-CNN), which is a fully 3D, end-to-end trained, 3-stage CNN cascade that exploits the hierarchical structure of such labeled cardiac data. Throughout the three stages of the cascade, the label definition changes and CaRe-CNN learns to gradually refine its intermediate predictions accordingly. Furthermore, to obtain more consistent qualitative predictions, we propose a series of post-processing steps that take anatomical constraints into account. Our CaRe-CNN was submitted to the FIMH 2023 MYOSAIQ challenge, where it ranked second out of 18 participating teams. CaRe-CNN showed great improvements most notably when segmenting the difficult but clinically most relevant myocardial infarct tissue (MIT) as well as microvascular obstructions (MVO). When computing the average scores over all labels, our method obtained the best score in eight out of ten metrics. Thus, accurate cardiac segmentation after acute MI via our CaRe-CNN allows generating patient-specific models of the heart serving as an important step towards personalized medicine.

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.