Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31830973›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

A comparison between two semantic deep learning frameworks for the autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease segmentation based on magnetic resonance images.

Vitoantonio Bevilacqua, Antonio Brunetti, Giacomo Donato Cascarano, Andrea Guerriero, Francesco Pesce, Marco Moschetta, Loreto Gesualdo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. State of the art review of AI in renal imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors.

Vitoantonio BevilacquaDepartment of Electrical and Information Engineering (DEI), Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy, Via Edoardo Orabona, 4, Bari, 70125, Italy. vitoantonio.bevilacqua@poliba.it.
Antonio BrunettiDepartment of Electrical and Information Engineering (DEI), Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy, Via Edoardo Orabona, 4, Bari, 70125, Italy.
Giacomo Donato CascaranoDepartment of Electrical and Information Engineering (DEI), Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy, Via Edoardo Orabona, 4, Bari, 70125, Italy.
Andrea GuerrieroDepartment of Electrical and Information Engineering (DEI), Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy, Via Edoardo Orabona, 4, Bari, 70125, Italy.
Francesco PesceD.E.T.O. University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare, 11, Bari, 70124, Italy.
Marco MoschettaD.E.T.O. University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare, 11, Bari, 70124, Italy.
Loreto GesualdoD.E.T.O. University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare, 11, Bari, 70124, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe automatic segmentation of kidneys in medical images is not a trivial task when the subjects undergoing the medical examination are affected by Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD). Several works dealing with the segmentation of Computed Tomography images from pathological subjects were proposed, showing high invasiveness of the examination or requiring interaction by the user for performing the segmentation of the images. In this work, we propose a fully-automated approach for the segmentation of Magnetic Resonance images, both reducing the invasiveness of the acquisition device and not requiring any interaction by the users for the segmentation of the images.

methodsTwo different approaches are proposed based on Deep Learning architectures using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) for the semantic segmentation of images, without needing to extract any hand-crafted features. In details, the first approach performs the automatic segmentation of images without any procedure for pre-processing the input. Conversely, the second approach performs a two-steps classification strategy: a first CNN automatically detects Regions Of Interest (ROIs); a subsequent classifier performs the semantic segmentation on the ROIs previously extracted.

resultsResults show that even though the detection of ROIs shows an overall high number of false positives, the subsequent semantic segmentation on the extracted ROIs allows achieving high performance in terms of mean Accuracy. However, the segmentation of the entire images input to the network remains the most accurate and reliable approach showing better performance than the previous approach.

conclusionThe obtained results show that both the investigated approaches are reliable for the semantic segmentation of polycystic kidneys since both the strategies reach an Accuracy higher than 85%. Also, both the investigated methodologies show performances comparable and consistent with other approaches found in literature working on images from different sources, reducing both the invasiveness of the analyses and the interaction needed by the users for performing the segmentation task.

Indexed as

Deep LearningPolycystic Kidney, Autosomal DominantSemanticsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyNeural Networks, ComputerTomography, X-Ray ComputedADPKDConvolutional neural networkDeep learningMagnetic resonanceR-CNNSemantic segmentation

Identifiers

PMID31830973
PMCPMC6907104

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.