Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29163946›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2017

Vertebral body segmentation with

Jan Egger, Christopher Nimsky, Xiaojun Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trueness of artificial intelligence-based, manual, and global thresholding segmentation protocols for human mandibles.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025
    Article
  2. Segmentation-based 3D volumetry and linear regression modeling for assessing the vertebral bone loss in pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Jan EggerInstitute of Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology (TUG), Graz, Austria.
Christopher NimskyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Xiaojun ChenSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSpinal diseases are very common; for example, the risk of osteoporotic fracture is 40% for White women and 13% for White men in the United States during their lifetime. Hence, the total number of surgical spinal treatments is on the rise with the aging population, and accurate diagnosis is of great importance to avoid complications and a reappearance of the symptoms. Imaging and analysis of a vertebral column is an exhausting task that can lead to wrong interpretations. The overall goal of this contribution is to study a cellular automata-based approach for the segmentation of vertebral bodies between the compacta and surrounding structures yielding to time savings and reducing interpretation errors.

methodsTo obtain the ground truth, T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging acquisitions of the spine were segmented in a slice-by-slice procedure by several neurosurgeons. Subsequently, the same vertebral bodies have been segmented by a physician using the cellular automata approach

resultsManual and

conclusionIn this contribution, we used the

Indexed as

Dice ScoreGrowCutmagnetic resonance imagingSegmentationvertebral body

Identifiers

PMID29163946
PMCPMC5686877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.