ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018
Pulmonary lobe separation in expiration chest CT scans based on subject-specific priors derived from inspiration scans.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Segmentation of pulmonary lobes in inspiration and expiration chest CT scan pairs is an important prerequisite for lobe-based quantitative disease assessment. Conventional methods process each CT scan independently, resulting typically in lower segmentation performance at expiration compared to inspiration. To address this issue, we present an approach, which utilizes CT scans at both respiratory states. It consists of two main parts: a base method that processes a single CT scan and an extended method that utilizes the segmentation result obtained on the inspiration scan as a subject-specific prior for segmentation of the expiration scan. We evaluated the methods on a diverse set of 40 CT scan pairs. In addition, we compare the performance of our method to a registration-based approach. On inspiration scans, the base method achieved an average distance error of 0.59, 0.64, and 0.91 mm for the left oblique, right oblique, and right horizontal fissures, respectively, when compared with expert-based reference tracings. On expiration scans, the base method's errors were 1.54, 3.24, and 3.34 mm, respectively. In comparison, utilizing proposed subject-specific priors for segmentation of expiration scans allowed decreasing average distance errors to 0.82, 0.79, and 1.04 mm, which represents a significant improvement ([Formula: see text]) compared with all other methods investigated.
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.