Skip to content
AI Atlas

The segmentation ceiling: why explicit left-ventricular masks do not improve learned ejection-fraction regression

Published 18 Sept 2026arXiv:2609.19730

data quality89

Updated 4 h ago · first seen 18 Sept 2026

paper_01M2SEHEPQRXMEW8YSW2T72E8E

Abstract

Accurate estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) from echocardiography is central to cardiovascular care, and deep learning enables automated EF prediction from echocardiographic video. Because EF is clinically derived from left-ventricular (LV) volumes, a widely held intuition is that explicit LV segmentation should improve prediction. We introduce a quantitative criterion, the segmentation ceiling, that makes this testable: from EF as a normalized difference of end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, we derive in closed form how per-frame segmentation area error propagates into EF error, and thus the accuracy a mask must reach before it can improve on direct regression. Using EchoNet-Dynamic, a UniFormer-S backbone, and the empirically measured within-patient error correlation, the criterion places the break-even near 10% per-frame area error, whereas a representative segmenter operates at roughly 14%, above the ceiling. Consistent with this, four strategies for injecting segmentation or area information (a predicted-mask channel, end-diastolic/end-systolic clip sampling, and per-bin and amplitude area-consistency objectives) fail to beat a raw-video baseline; ground-truth masks help only through label leakage. Input representation thus not being the limit, we identify generalization as the practical lever: weight averaging with strong augmentation attains a test R^2 of 0.806 (MAE 4.08) under a matched dense-clip protocol, comparable to an R(2+1)D baseline (0.811) while tightening the validation-to-test gap. Finally, a heteroscedastic beta-NLL formulation yields informative, well-calibrated per-prediction uncertainty, larger for clinically harder low-EF cases, where Monte-Carlo dropout does not. The segmentation ceiling gives a concrete design criterion for when mask-guided EF estimation is worthwhile, plus a simple, uncertainty-aware recipe for EF regression.

Authors

Authors 4

Bryar Mustafa ShareefFarshid Farhadi KhouzaniLaxmi GewaliPaul La Plante

Linked names open researcher pages (created from the paper's author list; name-only, no affiliation unless a source states it). Unlinked names have no researcher record yet.

Organizations

Organizations 0

No organization stated. arXiv metadata does not carry affiliations; an organization is linked only when a model card or lab page cites the paper.

Models

Models introduced or described 0

Inbound described_by relations from model cards and documentation.

No model links this paper yet

Model pages link papers through their model cards and documentation; the relation is written only when a source states it.

Datasets

Datasets used 0

No dataset relation recorded.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks used 0

No benchmark relation recorded.

Code

Repositories & frameworks 0

No repository linked.

Timeline

Timeline 1

Full timeline →

Sources

Sources 1

Source documents
SourceDocumentTypeTierLast observedSnapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.CV feedT1· Official4 h ago7

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.