ArticleJournal of digital imaging2009
3D segmentation and quantification of a masticatory muscle from MR data using patient-specific models and matching distributions.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI-based anatomical and biomechanical characterization of the human masticatory muscles.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Using Deep Learning to Perform Automatic Quantitative Measurement of Masseter and Tongue Muscles in Persons With Dementia: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Automatic Masseter Muscle Accurate Segmentation from CBCT Using Deep Learning-Based Model.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Reliable femoral frame construction based on MRI dedicated to muscles position follow-up.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2015Article
- Assessment of condyle, masseter and temporal muscles volumes in patients with juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: A cross-sectional study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.