Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26724926›Full record

ReviewMagma (New York, N.Y.)2016

Segmentation of the human spinal cord.

Benjamin De Leener, Manuel Taso, Julien Cohen-Adad, Virginie Callot

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Intersubject Variability and Normalization Strategies for Spinal Cord Total Cross-Sectional and Gray Matter Areas.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Benjamin De LeenerNeuroimaging Research Laboratory (NeuroPoly), Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Manuel TasoAix Marseille Université, IFSTTAR, LBA UMR_T 24, Marseille, France.
Julien Cohen-AdadNeuroimaging Research Laboratory (NeuroPoly), Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Virginie CallotAix Marseille Université, CNRS, CRMBM UMR 7339, Marseille, France. virginie.callot@univ-amu.fr.
Aix-Marseille Université · FRCentre de Résonance Magnétique Biologique et Médicale · FRPolytechnique Montréal · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmenting the spinal cord contour is a necessary step for quantifying spinal cord atrophy in various diseases. Delineating gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) is also useful for quantifying GM atrophy or for extracting multiparametric MRI metrics into specific WM tracts. Spinal cord segmentation in clinical research is not as developed as brain segmentation, however with the substantial improvement of MR sequences adapted to spinal cord MR investigations, the field of spinal cord MR segmentation has advanced greatly within the last decade. Segmentation techniques with variable accuracy and degree of complexity have been developed and reported in the literature. In this paper, we review some of the existing methods for cord and WM/GM segmentation, including intensity-based, surface-based, and image-based methods. We also provide recommendations for validating spinal cord segmentation techniques, as it is important to understand the intrinsic characteristics of the methods and to evaluate their performance and limitations. Lastly, we illustrate some applications in the healthy and pathological spinal cord. One conclusion of this review is that robust and automatic segmentation is clinically relevant, as it would allow for longitudinal and group studies free from user bias as well as reproducible multicentric studies in large populations, thereby helping to further our understanding of the spinal cord pathophysiology and to develop new criteria for early detection of subclinical evolution for prognosis prediction and for patient management. Another conclusion is that at the present time, no single method adequately segments the cord and its substructure in all the cases encountered (abnormal intensities, loss of contrast, deformation of the cord, etc.). A combination of different approaches is thus advised for future developments, along with the introduction of probabilistic shape models. Maturation of standardized frameworks, multiplatform availability, inclusion in large suite and data sharing would also ultimately benefit to the community.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMachine LearningPattern Recognition, AutomatedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpinal CordSpinal Cord DiseasesGray matterMRISegmentationSpinal cordWhite matter

Identifiers

PMID26724926
OpenAlexW2225380751

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.