Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18516642›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2009

3D segmentation and quantification of a masticatory muscle from MR data using patient-specific models and matching distributions.

H P Ng, S H Ong, J Liu, S Huang, K W C Foong, P S Goh, W L Nowinski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

H P NgBiomedical Imaging Lab, Agency for Science Technology and Research, 30 Biopolis Street, #07-01 Matrix, Singapore, 138671, Singapore. ng_hsiao_piau@sbic.a-star.edu.sg
S H Ong
J Liu
S Huang
K W C Foong
P S Goh
W L Nowinski

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A method is proposed for 3D segmentation and quantification of the masseter muscle from magnetic resonance (MR) images, which is often performed in pre-surgical planning and diagnosis. Because of a lack of suitable automatic techniques, a common practice is for clinicians to manually trace out all relevant regions from the image slices which is extremely time-consuming. The proposed method allows significant time savings. In the proposed method, a patient-specific masseter model is built from a test dataset after determining the dominant slices that represent the salient features of the 3D muscle shape from training datasets. Segmentation is carried out only on these slices in the test dataset, with shape-based interpolation then applied to build the patient-specific model, which serves as a coarse segmentation of the masseter. This is first refined by matching the intensity distribution within the masseter volume against the distribution estimated from the segmentations in the dominant slices, and further refined through boundary analysis where the homogeneity of the intensities of the boundary pixels is analyzed and outliers removed. It was observed that the left and right masseter muscles' volumes in young adults (28.54 and 27.72 cm(3)) are higher than those of older (ethnic group removed) adults (23.16 and 22.13 cm(3)). Evaluation indicates good agreement between the segmentations and manual tracings, with average overlap indexes for the left and right masseters at 86.6% and 87.5% respectively.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAdultAge FactorsHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMasticatory MusclesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18516642
PMCPMC3043717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.