发表机构
Technical University of Košice; Pavol Jozef Šafárik University; L. Pasteur University Hospital（科希策技术大学; 帕沃尔·约瑟夫·沙法里克大学; L. 巴斯德大学医院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究构建十一结构心脏CT统计形状模型，对比闭式条件高斯估计器等方法，发现线性基线在心脏形状补全任务中优于深度模型与最近邻检索，支持心脏队列统一研究。
AI 中文摘要
公开心脏队列仅标注心脏的不同子集，若缺乏对应关系则无法合并不同来源的形状。在已发布的心脏形状资源中，未发现任何一款网格同时将心耳、肺静脉和腔静脉残端作为独立区块。现有补全基准将深度模型与最小二乘投影至形状模式的方法对比，而非同一拟合模型隐含的条件估计器。本研究发布一款由383例自动标注病例构建的十一结构心脏CT统计形状模型，所有病例均采用11571个顶点的对应关系，在固定内部划分和端点下对比各类补全估计器。在从拟合集中留出的76例内部测试病例中，闭式条件高斯估计器在平均每个顶点误差为3.717mm，该误差是在1个、3个、5个和9个观测结构上的平均值，可重建缺失的非腔室结构；经5次重拟合的掩码条件图变分自编码器达到5.248mm，最近邻检索达到8.931mm，两者差值为1.531mm（95%置信区间为1.384至1.711），且该排序在原始坐标敏感性分析中保持一致。58例外部CT病例存在专家手动标注，但本研究的配准参考仅足够对5个结构评分，此时闭式估计器在两个补全心房的平均表面距离、95百分位豪斯多夫距离和倒角误差上仍更低。在20例的第二个公开基准中，参考仅足够对4个补全结构中的3个评分，同样的排序依然成立，另有4个结构无专家参考。发布的模型及其补全算子支持对齐CT的队列统一研究，而非临床使用。
英文摘要
Public cardiac cohorts annotate different subsets of the heart, so shapes from separate sources cannot be pooled without shared correspondence. Among released cardiac shape resources, none we identified carries the atrial appendage, pulmonary veins, and caval stumps as separate blocks in one mesh. Completion benchmarks also compare deep models against a least-squares projection onto shape modes, not the conditional estimator the same fitted model implies. We release an eleven- structure cardiac computed-tomography (CT) statistical shape model, built from 383 automatically labelled cases in 11 571-vertex correspondence, and compare completion estimators under one frozen internal split and endpoint. On a 76-case internal list held out from fitting, a closed-form conditional-Gaussian estimator reconstructed the missing non-chamber structures at 3.717 mm mean per-vertex error, averaged equally over one, three, five, and nine observed structures. A five-refit mask-conditioned graph variational autoencoder reached 5.248 mm and nearest-neighbour retrieval 8.931 mm. The paired difference was 1.531 mm (95% confidence interval 1.384 to 1.711), and the ordering held in a raw-coordinate sensitivity arm. Expert manual labels exist for 58 external CT cases, but our registered reference is close enough to score only five structures. There the closed-form estimator again had lower average surface distance, 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance, and Chamfer error for both completed atria. On a second public benchmark of 20 cases the reference was close enough for three of four completed structures, and the same ordering held there. Four structures have no expert reference. The released model and its completion operator support cohort-unification research on aligned CT, not clinical use.
