Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34679445›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

3D Automated Segmentation of Lower Leg Muscles Using Machine Learning on a Heterogeneous Dataset.

Marlena Rohm, Marius Markmann, Johannes Forsting, Robert Rehmann, Martijn Froeling, Lara Schlaffke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Marlena RohmDepartment of Neurology, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6168-4635
Marius MarkmannDepartment of Neurology, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Johannes ForstingDepartment of Neurology, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6647-3167
Robert RehmannDepartment of Neurology, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Martijn FroelingDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, 3584 Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3841-0497
Lara SchlaffkeDepartment of Neurology, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil gGmbH, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0716-3780

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 122679504FoRUM F960R-2020, K139-20, K144-20, F942N-19Heimer StiftungSanofi Genzyme SGZ-2019-12541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative MRI combines non-invasive imaging techniques to reveal alterations in muscle pathophysiology. Creating muscle-specific labels manually is time consuming and requires an experienced examiner. Semi-automatic and fully automatic methods reduce segmentation time significantly. Current machine learning solutions are commonly trained on data from healthy subjects using homogeneous databases with the same image contrast. While yielding high Dice scores (DS), those solutions are not applicable to different image contrasts and acquisitions. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of automatic segmentation of a heterogeneous database. To create a heterogeneous dataset, we pooled lower leg muscle images from different studies with different contrasts and fields-of-view, containing healthy controls and diagnosed patients with various neuromuscular diseases. A second homogenous database with uniform contrasts was created as a subset of the first database. We trained three 3D-convolutional neuronal networks (CNN) on those databases to test performance as compared to manual segmentation. All networks, training on heterogeneous data, were able to predict seven muscles with a minimum average DS of 0.75. U-Net performed best when trained on the heterogeneous dataset (DS: 0.80 ± 0.10, AHD: 0.39 ± 0.35). ResNet and DenseNet yielded higher DS, when trained on a heterogeneous dataset (both DS: 0.86), as compared to a homogeneous dataset (ResNet DS: 0.83, DenseNet DS: 0.76). In conclusion, a CNN trained on a heterogeneous dataset achieves more accurate labels for predicting a heterogeneous database of lower leg muscles than a CNN trained on a homogenous dataset. We propose that a large heterogeneous database is needed, to make automated segmentation feasible for different kinds of image acquisitions.

Indexed as

machine learningmuscle segmentationqMRI

Identifiers

PMID34679445
PMCPMC8534967

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.