Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34767663›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2022

Automatic identification and segmentation of slice of minimal hiatal dimensions in transperineal ultrasound volumes.

F van den Noort, C Manzini, C H van der Vaart, M A J van Limbeek, C H Slump, A T M Grob

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

F van den NoortRobotics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9998-1229
C ManziniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5265-7915
C H van der VaartDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0890-5368
M A J van LimbeekDynamics of Complex Fluids, Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1278-2815
C H SlumpRobotics and Mechatronics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
A T M GrobMulti-Modality Medical Imaging, Faculty of Science and Technology, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4337-8962

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and validate a tool for automatic selection of the slice of minimal hiatal dimensions (SMHD) and segmentation of the urogenital hiatus (UH) in transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) volumes.

methodsManual selection of the SMHD and segmentation of the UH was performed in TPUS volumes of 116 women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). These data were used to train two deep-learning algorithms. The first algorithm was trained to provide an estimation of the position of the SMHD. Based on this estimation, a slice was selected and fed into the second algorithm, which performed automatic segmentation of the UH. From this segmentation, measurements of the UH area (UHA), anteroposterior diameter (APD) and coronal diameter (CD) were computed automatically. The mean absolute distance between manually and automatically selected SMHD, the overlap (dice similarity index (DSI)) between manual and automatic UH segmentation and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between manual and automatic UH measurements were assessed on a test set of 30 TPUS volumes.

resultsThe mean absolute distance between manually and automatically selected SMHD was 0.20 cm. All DSI values between manual and automatic UH segmentations were above 0.85. The ICC values between manual and automatic UH measurements were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97) for UHA, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-0.97) for APD and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-0.91) for CD, demonstrating excellent agreement.

conclusionsOur deep-learning algorithms allowed reliable automatic selection of the SMHD and UH segmentation in TPUS volumes of women with symptomatic POP. These algorithms can be implemented in the software of TPUS machines, thus reducing clinical analysis time and simplifying the examination of TPUS data for research and clinical purposes. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

ObstetricsPelvic Organ ProlapseAlgorithmsFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalPregnancyUltrasonographyautomatic segmentationdeep learninglevator hiatuspelvic floortransperineal ultrasoundurogenital hiatus

Identifiers

PMID34767663
PMCPMC9828486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.