Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29746490›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Clinical evaluation of semi-automatic open-source algorithmic software segmentation of the mandibular bone: Practical feasibility and assessment of a new course of action.

Jürgen Wallner, Kerstin Hochegger, Xiaojun Chen, Irene Mischak, Knut Reinbacher, Mauro Pau, Tomislav Zrnc, Katja Schwenzer-Zimmerer, Wolfgang Zemann, Dieter Schmalstieg and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Radiomics in spinal research: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors.

Jürgen WallnerDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5/1, Graz, Austria.
Kerstin HocheggerComputer Algorithms for Medicine (Cafe) Laboratory, Graz, Austria.
Xiaojun ChenSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Irene MischakDepartment of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, Graz, Austria.
Knut ReinbacherDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5/1, Graz, Austria.
Mauro PauDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5/1, Graz, Austria.
Tomislav ZrncDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5/1, Graz, Austria.
Katja Schwenzer-ZimmererDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5/1, Graz, Austria.
Wolfgang ZemannDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5/1, Graz, Austria.
Dieter SchmalstiegInstitute for Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 16c/II, Graz, Austria.
Jan EggerComputer Algorithms for Medicine (Cafe) Laboratory, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5225-1982

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF KLI 678
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComputer assisted technologies based on algorithmic software segmentation are an increasing topic of interest in complex surgical cases. However-due to functional instability, time consuming software processes, personnel resources or licensed-based financial costs many segmentation processes are often outsourced from clinical centers to third parties and the industry. Therefore, the aim of this trial was to assess the practical feasibility of an easy available, functional stable and licensed-free segmentation approach to be used in the clinical practice. MATERIAL AND

methodsIn this retrospective, randomized, controlled trail the accuracy and accordance of the open-source based segmentation algorithm GrowCut was assessed through the comparison to the manually generated ground truth of the same anatomy using 10 CT lower jaw data-sets from the clinical routine. Assessment parameters were the segmentation time, the volume, the voxel number, the Dice Score and the Hausdorff distance.

resultsOverall semi-automatic GrowCut segmentation times were about one minute. Mean Dice Score values of over 85% and Hausdorff Distances below 33.5 voxel could be achieved between the algorithmic GrowCut-based segmentations and the manual generated ground truth schemes. Statistical differences between the assessment parameters were not significant (p<0.05) and correlation coefficients were close to the value one (r > 0.94) for any of the comparison made between the two groups. DISCUSSION: Complete functional stable and time saving segmentations with high accuracy and high positive correlation could be performed by the presented interactive open-source based approach. In the cranio-maxillofacial complex the used method could represent an algorithmic alternative for image-based segmentation in the clinical practice for e.g. surgical treatment planning or visualization of postoperative results and offers several advantages. Due to an open-source basis the used method could be further developed by other groups or specialists. Systematic comparisons to other segmentation approaches or with a greater data amount are areas of future works.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMandibleRetrospective StudiesSoftwareTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID29746490
PMCPMC5944980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.