Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35965493›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Deep learning auto-segmentation of cervical skeletal muscle for sarcopenia analysis in patients with head and neck cancer.

Mohamed A Naser, Kareem A Wahid, Aaron J Grossberg, Brennan Olson, Rishab Jain, Dina El-Habashy, Cem Dede, Vivian Salama, Moamen Abobakr, Abdallah S R Mohamed and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mohamed A NaserDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Kareem A WahidDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Aaron J GrossbergDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
Brennan OlsonMedical Scientist Training Program, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
Rishab JainDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
Dina El-HabashyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Cem DedeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Vivian SalamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Moamen AbobakrDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Abdallah S R MohamedDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Renjie HeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Joel JaskariDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University School of Science, Espoo, Finland.
Jaakko SahlstenDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University School of Science, Espoo, Finland.
Kimmo KaskiDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University School of Science, Espoo, Finland.
Clifton D FullerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USAalto University · FIOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

Development of functional magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients using novel MR-Linac deviceR01DE028290 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CHRISTODOULEAS, JOHN PAUL, FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID · 2019 to 2023
$4.3M
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artificial Intelligence Pipeline for Oropharyngeal Cancer Radiotherapy Treatment GuidanceF31DE031502 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI WAHID, KAREEM · 2021 to 2023
$68k
NIDCR NIH HHS F31 DE031502NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE028290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Purpose: Sarcopenia is a prognostic factor in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Sarcopenia can be determined using the skeletal muscle index (SMI) calculated from cervical neck skeletal muscle (SM) segmentations. However, SM segmentation requires manual input, which is time-consuming and variable. Therefore, we developed a fully-automated approach to segment cervical vertebra SM. Materials/Methods: 390 HNC patients with contrast-enhanced CT scans were utilized (300-training, 90-testing). Ground-truth single-slice SM segmentations at the C3 vertebra were manually generated. A multi-stage deep learning pipeline was developed, where a 3D ResUNet auto-segmented the C3 section (33 mm window), the middle slice of the section was auto-selected, and a 2D ResUNet auto-segmented the auto-selected slice. Both the 3D and 2D approaches trained five sub-models (5-fold cross-validation) and combined sub-model predictions on the test set using majority vote ensembling. Model performance was primarily determined using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Predicted SMI was calculated using the auto-segmented SM cross-sectional area. Finally, using established SMI cutoffs, we performed a Kaplan-Meier analysis to determine associations with overall survival. Results: Mean test set DSC of the 3D and 2D models were 0.96 and 0.95, respectively. Predicted SMI had high correlation to the ground-truth SMI in males and females (r>0.96). Predicted SMI stratified patients for overall survival in males (log-rank p = 0.01) but not females (log-rank p = 0.07), consistent with ground-truth SMI. Conclusion: We developed a high-performance, multi-stage, fully-automated approach to segment cervical vertebra SM. Our study is an essential step towards fully-automated sarcopenia-related decision-making in patients with HNC.

Indexed as

auto-segmentationdeep learninghead and neck cancersarcopeniaskeletal muscle index

Identifiers

PMID35965493
PMCPMC9366009
OpenAlexW4288074504

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.