Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34506602›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Deep generative models for automated muscle segmentation in computed tomography scanning.

Daisuke Nishiyama, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Takaya Taniguchi, Daisuke Fukui, Manabu Yamanaka, Teiji Harada, Hiroshi Yamada

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Automated analysis of paraspinal muscles: segmentation and multi-parameter quantification in lumbar CT using convolutional neural network.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daisuke NishiyamaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-0096-4067
Hiroshi IwasakiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8096-3362
Takaya TaniguchiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.
Daisuke FukuiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8939-8494
Manabu YamanakaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.
Teiji HaradaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3335-7316
Hiroshi YamadaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7694-883X
Wakayama Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate gluteus medius (GMd) volume evaluation may aid in the analysis of muscular atrophy states and help gain an improved understanding of patient recovery via rehabilitation. However, the segmentation of muscle regions in GMd images for cubic muscle volume assessment is time-consuming and labor-intensive. This study automated GMd-region segmentation from the computed tomography (CT) images of patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis using deep learning and evaluated the segmentation accuracy. To this end, 5250 augmented pairs of training data were obtained from five participants, and a conditional generative adversarial network was used to identify the relationships between the image pairs. Using the preserved test datasets, the results of automatic segmentation with the trained deep learning model were compared to those of manual segmentation in terms of the dice similarity coefficient (DSC), volume similarity (VS), and shape similarity (MS). As observed, the average DSC values for automatic and manual segmentations were 0.748 and 0.812, respectively, with a significant difference (p < 0.0001); the average VS values were 0.247 and 0.203, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.069); and the average MS values were 1.394 and 1.156, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.308). The GMd volumes obtained by automatic and manual segmentation were 246.2 cm3 and 282.9 cm3, respectively. The noninferiority of the DSC obtained by automatic segmentation was verified against that obtained by manual segmentation. Accordingly, the proposed GAN-based automatic GMd-segmentation technique is confirmed to be noninferior to manual segmentation. Therefore, the findings of this research confirm that the proposed method not only reduces time and effort but also facilitates accurate assessment of the cubic muscle volume.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overDeep LearningFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMuscle, SkeletalNeural Networks, ComputerPattern Recognition, AutomatedRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID34506602
PMCPMC8432798
OpenAlexW3196726237

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.