ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Combined model-based and deep learning-based automated 3D zonal segmentation of the prostate on T2-weighted MR images: clinical evaluation.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep Learning Prostate MRI Segmentation Accuracy and Robustness: A Systematic Review.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Pooled it
- Deep learning-based segmentation of kidneys and renal cysts on T2-weighted MRI from patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Integrating a deep neural network and Transformer architecture for the automatic segmentation and survival prediction in cervical cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- The use of deep learning in interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy): A review with a focus on open source and open data.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2024Review
- The Segmentation of Multiple Types of Uterine Lesions in Magnetic Resonance Images Using a Sequential Deep Learning Method with Image-Level Annotations.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Prostate volume analysis in image registration for prostate cancer care: a verification study.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023Article
- Interobserver Agreement in Automatic Segmentation Annotation of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development and clinical utility analysis of a prostate zonal segmentation model on T2-weighted imaging: a multicenter study.Insights into imaging · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo train and to test for prostate zonal segmentation an existing algorithm already trained for whole-gland segmentation.
methodsThe algorithm, combining model-based and deep learning-based approaches, was trained for zonal segmentation using the NCI-ISBI-2013 dataset and 70 T2-weighted datasets acquired at an academic centre. Test datasets were randomly selected among examinations performed at this centre on one of two scanners (General Electric, 1.5 T; Philips, 3 T) not used for training. Automated segmentations were corrected by two independent radiologists. When segmentation was initiated outside the prostate, images were cropped and segmentation repeated. Factors influencing the algorithm's mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and its precision were assessed using beta regression.
resultsEighty-two test datasets were selected; one was excluded. In 13/81 datasets, segmentation started outside the prostate, but zonal segmentation was possible after image cropping. Depending on the radiologist chosen as reference, algorithm's median DSCs were 96.4/97.4%, 91.8/93.0% and 79.9/89.6% for whole-gland, central gland and anterior fibromuscular stroma (AFMS) segmentations, respectively. DSCs comparing radiologists' delineations were 95.8%, 93.6% and 81.7%, respectively. For all segmentation tasks, the scanner used for imaging significantly influenced the mean DSC and its precision, and the mean DSC was significantly lower in cases with initial segmentation outside the prostate. For central gland segmentation, the mean DSC was also significantly lower in larger prostates. The radiologist chosen as reference had no significant impact, except for AFMS segmentation.
conclusionsThe algorithm performance fell within the range of inter-reader variability but remained significantly impacted by the scanner used for imaging. KEY POINTS: • Median Dice similarity coefficients obtained by the algorithm fell within human inter-reader variability for the three segmentation tasks (whole gland, central gland, anterior fibromuscular stroma). • The scanner used for imaging significantly impacted the performance of the automated segmentation for the three segmentation tasks. • The performance of the automated segmentation of the anterior fibromuscular stroma was highly variable across patients and showed also high variability across the two radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35001157What 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.