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.
Self-supervised learning (SSL) is increasingly used in medical imaging to reduce annotation requirements, but representation quality is often judged using a single downstream evaluation setting. For dense clinical tasks, this can confound representation quality with the capacity of the downstream model used to recover task-relevant information. We present a systematic evaluation of self-supervised representations for left-ventricular segmentation and ejection fraction (EF) estimation from apical four-chamber echocardiography on EchoNet-Dynamic. Rather than relying on a single downstream probe, we compare a hierarchy of extraction strategies with increasing expressivity: heuristic extraction without mask-supervised training, frozen linear probes, frozen lightweight decoder probes, and partial fine-tuning. We apply this framework to two complementary representation families: generic frozen self-DIstillation with NO labels (DINOv3) features and a task-adapted dense self-supervised representation, Bootstrap Your Own Segmentation (BYOS). In both families, heuristic extraction substantially understated what was recoverable from the frozen representation. For DINOv3, performance improved from Dice 0.684 and EF mean absolute error (MAE) 13.01 under heuristic extraction to Dice 0.906 and EF MAE 9.65 with a frozen lightweight decoder, approaching a supervised U-Net baseline (Dice 0.915, EF MAE 9.72). For BYOS, performance improved from Dice 0.687 and EF MAE 17.83 under heuristic extraction to Dice 0.902 and EF MAE 8.74 with a frozen lightweight decoder. These results show that conclusions about self-supervised representation quality in dense echocardiographic analysis depend strongly on the downstream extraction strategy used for evaluation. We therefore argue that multi-strategy evaluation is an important methodological consideration for SSL in dense medical image analysis.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a primary marker of cardiac function. However, routine estimation from endocardial measurements requires manual delineation at end-diastole (ED) and end-systole (ES), a process that is time-consuming and subject to inter-observer variability. Reliable automation is especially valuable for point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), where computational resources are limited and acquisition quality varies. We propose Echo-E3Net, an anatomy-guided spatio-temporal network that explicitly embeds cardiac anatomy into LVEF prediction. A dual-phase Endocardial Border Detector (E2CBD) uses phase-specific cross-attention to localize ED/ES endocardial landmarks and produce phase-aware landmark embeddings, while an Endocardial Feature Aggregator (E2FA) fuses these embeddings with global statistical descriptors of deep feature maps to refine EF regression. Training is guided by a lightweight geometric loss that uses ED and ES endocardial landmarks to regularize EF prediction. On EchoNet-Dynamic and a PSAX subset of EchoNet-Pediatric, Echo-E3Net attains competitive performance using only 1.55M parameters and 8.05 GFLOPs, an order-of-magnitude compute reduction versus recent baselines, supporting real-time deployment. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/moeinheidari7829/Echo-E3Net.
Background and Objective: Deep video models estimate left-ventricular ejection fraction (EF) from echocardiography with near-expert accuracy, and post-hoc attribution (Chefer relevance for transformers, Grad-CAM for CNNs) is increasingly used to certify that models "look at the right place." Yet whether these explanations are faithful both spatially and temporally is unaudited. Because EF is defined by the end-systolic (ES) and end-diastolic (ED) frames, a faithful explanation must localize the left ventricle (space) and the decisive frames (time). Methods: We fine-tune two distinct EF regressors on EchoNet-Dynamic -- a self-supervised VideoMAE transformer and a Kinetics-pretrained R(2+1)D CNN -- and audit each with architecture-matched attribution along three axes: intersection-over-relevance (IoR) against LV masks, deletion AUC, and a temporal localization index on ES/ED frames, each relative to chance with per-case 95% CIs over 50 studies. A tubelet-occlusion probe separates attribution failure from model behavior. Results: Both models are anatomically faithful -- IoR 2.91x (VideoMAE) and 1.98x (R(2+1)D) above chance -- yet temporally blind: temporal localization is indistinguishable from chance (0.97--1.00) and no better than random attribution. Occlusion shows the models do not preferentially rely on ES/ED (0.90x chance), so temporal blindness reflects model behavior, not an attribution artifact. Conclusions: Spatial faithfulness does not imply temporal faithfulness. Attribution can certify anatomical grounding while masking that a model ignores the clinically decisive frames -- a caution for XAI-based validation of video diagnostic models and a call for temporally-aware training and evaluation.