Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34139383›Full record

ArticlePhysica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB)2021

Automatic lung segmentation in COVID-19 patients: Impact on quantitative computed tomography analysis.

L Berta, F Rizzetto, C De Mattia, D Lizio, M Felisi, P E Colombo, S Carrazza, S Gelmini, L Bianchi, D Artioli and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

14 authors.

L BertaDepartment of Medical Physics, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy.
F RizzettoDepartment of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy; Postgraduate School of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy.
C De MattiaDepartment of Medical Physics, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy.
D LizioDepartment of Medical Physics, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy.
M FelisiDepartment of Medical Physics, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy.
P E ColomboDepartment of Medical Physics, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy.
S CarrazzaDepartment of Physics, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Giovanni Celoria 16, 20133 Milan, Italy; Department of Physics, INFN Sezione di Milano, via Giovanni Celoria 16, 20133 Milan, Italy.
S GelminiDepartment of Physics, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Giovanni Celoria 16, 20133 Milan, Italy.
L BianchiDepartment of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy; Postgraduate School of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy.
D ArtioliDepartment of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy.
F TravagliniDepartment of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy.
A VanzulliDepartment of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy.
A TorresinDepartment of Medical Physics, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162 Milan, Italy; Department of Physics, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Giovanni Celoria 16, 20133 Milan, Italy. Electronic address: alberto.torresin@unimi.it.
Niguarda COVID-19 Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the impact of lung segmentation accuracy in an automatic pipeline for quantitative analysis of CT images.

methodsFour different platforms for automatic lung segmentation based on convolutional neural network (CNN), region-growing technique and atlas-based algorithm were considered. The platforms were tested using CT images of 55 COVID-19 patients with severe lung impairment. Four radiologists assessed the segmentations using a 5-point qualitative score (QS). For each CT series, a manually revised reference segmentation (RS) was obtained. Histogram-based quantitative metrics (QM) were calculated from CT histogram using lung segmentationsfrom all platforms and RS. Dice index (DI) and differences of QMs (ΔQMs) were calculated between RS and other segmentations.

resultsHighest QS and lower ΔQMs values were associated to the CNN algorithm. However, only 45% CNN segmentations were judged to need no or only minimal corrections, and in only 17 cases (31%), automatic segmentations provided RS without manual corrections. Median values of the DI for the four algorithms ranged from 0.993 to 0.904. Significant differences for all QMs calculated between automatic segmentations and RS were found both when data were pooled together and stratified according to QS, indicating a relationship between qualitative and quantitative measurements. The most unstable QM was the histogram 90th percentile, with median ΔQMs values ranging from 10HU and 158HU between different algorithms.

conclusionsNone of tested algorithms provided fully reliable segmentation. Segmentation accuracy impacts differently on different quantitative metrics, and each of them should be individually evaluated according to the purpose of subsequent analyses.

Indexed as

COVID-19AlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLungNeural Networks, ComputerSARS-CoV-2Tomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyCOVID-19Lung segmentationQCTQuantitative imagingSegmentation algorithms

Identifiers

PMID34139383
PMCPMC9188767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.