ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2021
Semi-automatic micro-CT segmentation of the midfoot using calibrated thresholds.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review of image segmentation techniques for biomedical micro-CT: from laboratory absorption imaging to synchrotron phase-contrast.Npj imaging · 2026Review
- Morphological and morphometric analysis of tarsal bones according to sex.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2024Article
- Morphologic analysis of the 1st and 2nd tarsometatarsal joint articular surfaces.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the field of skeletal research, accurate and reliable segmentation methods are necessary for quantitative micro-CT analysis to assess bone quality. We propose a method of semi-automatic image segmentation of the midfoot, using the cuneiform bones as a model, based on thresholds set by phantom calibration that allows reproducible results in low cortical thickness bones.
methodsManual and semi-automatic segmentation methods were compared in micro-CT scans of the medial and intermediate cuneiforms of 24 cadaveric specimens. The manual method used intensity thresholds, hole filling, and manual cleanup. The semi-automatic method utilized calibrated bone and soft tissue thresholds Boolean subtraction to cleanly identify edges before hole filling. Intra- and inter-rater reliability was tested for the semi-automatic method in all specimens. Mask volume and average bone mineral density (BMD) were measured for all masks, and the three-dimensional models were compared to the initial semi-automatic segmentation using an unsigned distance part comparison analysis. Segmentation methods were compared with paired t-tests with significance level 0.05, and reliability was analyzed by calculating intra-class correlation coefficients.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences in mask volume and BMD between the manual and semi-automatic segmentation methods in both bones. The intra- and inter-reliability was excellent for mask volume and bone density in both bones. Part comparisons showed a higher maximum distance between surfaces for the manual segmentation than the repeat semi-automatic segmentations.
conclusionWe developed a semi-automatic micro-CT segmentation method based on calibrated thresholds. This method was designed specifically for use in bones with high rates of curvature and low cortical bone density, such as the cuneiforms, where traditional threshold-based segmentation is more challenging. Our method shows improvement over manual segmentation and was highly reliable, making it appropriate for use in quantitative micro-CT analysis.
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.