Skip to content
Open Imaging Index
MRI Heart

SCMR Consensus Contours

Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Consensus Contour dataset (Cardiac Atlas Project)

Short-axis cine cardiac MRI of 15 subjects (healthy, infarct, heart failure, LV hypertrophy) from GE, Siemens and Philips scanners, with left ventricular myocardial contours from seven SCMR core labs fused into consensus contours that are kept back for benchmarking.

Go to dataset Edit Report

Overview

The SCMR Consensus Contours dataset is a small reference set of cardiac cine MRI exams built to give a dependable ground truth for left ventricular myocardial contours. Seven experienced core laboratories of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance each traced the myocardium on the same exams following their own clinical protocol, and the Cardiac Atlas Project (CAP) fused these tracings into one consensus contour per slice. The set is meant for training new readers and for benchmarking automated or manual contouring against expert agreement.

Composition

The set holds 15 exams: five healthy volunteers, six patients with myocardial infarction, two with heart failure and two with left ventricular hypertrophy. By the per-case table of the 2015 paper, 11 subjects are male and 4 female, aged 42 to 77. Requesters receive the DICOM short-axis images, low-resolution PNG snapshots of the consensus contours, a description of the contour file format, and a CSV listing pathology, vendor, end-diastolic and end-systolic frame numbers and the study instance UID.

Acquisition

Exams were acquired with contiguous short-axis steady-state free precession cine slices and two or three long-axis slices, following SCMR guidelines, on GE, Siemens and Philips scanners. Slice thickness was 8 or 10 mm. Short-axis series have 10 to 15 slices and 20 to 60 frames per cycle. Images were anonymized and contributed to CAP with institutional review board approval and written informed consent.

Annotations

Each reader drew endocardial and epicardial contours on short-axis slices at end-diastole and endocardial contours at end-systole. Consensus contours were estimated slice by slice with the STAPLE algorithm, and an independent reader judged all of them clinically acceptable. The consensus contours are not released. Users submit their own contours and CAP returns a report comparing them with the consensus, including volume, mass and ejection fraction agreement.

Known limitations

  • Only 15 cases, so subgroups have two to six subjects.
  • The paper's Methods text gives 4 GE, 5 Siemens and 6 Philips exams, while its per-case table lists 8 GE, 5 Siemens and 2 Philips.
  • Field strength and acquisition sites are not reported.
  • The consensus reflects a blend of core lab practices, which differ in where they place contours.

Cohort

Aggregate numbers from the sources below. Bars are relative to the 15 subjects.

Sex

  • Male 11 73%
  • Female 4 27%

Age

mean 61.7 · range 42 to 77
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
40-4950-5960-6970-79

Contrast / sequence

subjects, values can overlap

  • Cine MRI 15 100%

Condition

subjects, values can overlap

  • Myocardial infarction 6 40%
  • Healthy control 5 33%
  • Heart failure 2 13%
  • Left ventricular hypertrophy 2 13%

Scanner vendor

subjects

  • GE HealthCare 8 53%
  • Siemens Healthineers 5 33%
  • Philips 2 13%

License and access

Our reading of the license, not legal advice. Before you use the data, read the original license and confirm that your use is allowed. We take no responsibility for how you use a dataset. Full disclaimer

Access
Application

A research proposal is reviewed and approved

Access page

Different parts of the data carry different licenses. The summary on the right shows the most restrictive answer per rule.

For All data, terms consented to in the request form

Cardiac Atlas Project SCMR Consensus Contour data request terms

Requesters describe their use and data handling and must consent to three terms: use the data only to contour the myocardium, accept the CAP Policy Statements, and not pass the data on outside their research group. Requests are forwarded to the data contributors for a decision.

Original license text Version read: Online request form "SCMR Consensus Contour", read 2026-10-09 Checked 2026-10-09

What you can do

  • Not stated
  • Conditional
  • Conditional
  • Publish results Not stated

What you can share

  • No
  • Share derived data Not stated
  • Share trained models Not stated

What you must do

  • Cite or credit No
  • Share alike No
  • Yes
  • Ethics approval No
  • Manuscript review No
  • Release code No
  • Return results No
  • Delete after use No

Limits

  • No re-identification No
  • Location limits No
For All data, CAP user policy accepted in the request form

Cardiac Atlas Project Policies and Procedures for Data Distribution to Users

Users submit a research project to the CAP Steering Committee and each contributing study, then sign a Data Distribution Agreement per study. Data may be used only for that project, not passed on without CAP approval, not used commercially without the contributors' permission, and are deleted when the project ends.

Original license text Version read: v1, 2009-06-25 Checked 2026-10-09

What you can do

  • Conditional
  • Not stated
  • Conditional
  • Conditional

What you can share

  • Conditional
  • Conditional
  • Share trained models Not stated

What you must do

  • Yes
  • Share alike No
  • Yes
  • No
  • Conditional
  • Release code No
  • Yes
  • Yes

Limits

  • Yes
  • No

Citation

Suinesiaputra A, Bluemke DA, Cowan BR, Friedrich MG, Kramer CM, Kwong R, Plein S, Schulz-Menger J, Westenberg JJM, Young AA, Nagel E. Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 17, 63 (2015). doi:10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9

All numbers

Every number on this page, as stored in stats.csv, with its source.

MeasureBreakdownValueSource
Subjectstotal 15suinesiaputra2015
Methods: Participants
Subjectscontrast=cine
Short-axis SSFP cine
15suinesiaputra2015
Methods: Participants
Subjectscondition=healthy
Healthy volunteers
5suinesiaputra2015
Methods: Participants
Subjectscondition=myocardial_infarction 6suinesiaputra2015
Methods: Participants
Subjectscondition=heart_failure 2suinesiaputra2015
Methods: Participants
Subjectscondition=left_ventricular_hypertrophy 2suinesiaputra2015
Methods: Participants
Subjectssex=male
Counted from the per-case gender column
11suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectssex=female
Counted from the per-case gender column
4suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectsvendor=ge
Counted from the per-case vendor column; the Methods text gives 4 GE, 5 Siemens and 6 Philips
8suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectsvendor=siemens
Counted from the per-case vendor column
5suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectsvendor=philips
Counted from the per-case vendor column; the Methods text gives 6
2suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectsage=40-49
Counted from the per-case age column
1suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectsage=50-59
Counted from the per-case age column
5suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectsage=60-69
Counted from the per-case age column
4suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Subjectsage=70-79
Counted from the per-case age column
5suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Mean agetotal
Computed from the 15 per-case ages
61.7suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Median agetotal
Computed from the 15 per-case ages
63suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Minimum agetotal 42suinesiaputra2015
Table 1
Maximum agetotal 77suinesiaputra2015
Table 1

Sources

The keys used in the table above.