ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of a hybrid pipeline for automated segmentation of solid lesions based on mathematical algorithms and deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A semi-automatic segmentation method for meningioma developed using a variational approach model.The neuroradiology journal · 2024Article
- Beyond radiologist-level liver lesion detection on multi-phase contrast-enhanced CT images by deep learning.iScience · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluate the accuracy of an original hybrid segmentation pipeline, combining variational and deep learning methods, in the segmentation of CT scans of stented aortic aneurysms, abdominal organs and brain lesions. The hybrid pipeline is trained on 50 aortic CT scans and tested on 10. Additionally, we trained and tested the hybrid pipeline on publicly available datasets of CT scans of abdominal organs and MR scans of brain tumours. We tested the accuracy of the hybrid pipeline against a gold standard (manual segmentation) and compared its performance to that of a standard automated segmentation method with commonly used metrics, including the DICE and JACCARD and volumetric similarity (VS) coefficients, and the Hausdorff Distance (HD). Results. The hybrid pipeline produced very accurate segmentations of the aorta, with mean DICE, JACCARD and VS coefficients of: 0.909, 0.837 and 0.972 in thrombus segmentation and 0.937, 0.884 and 0.970 for stent and lumen segmentation. It consistently outperformed the standard automated method. Similar results were observed when the hybrid pipeline was trained and tested on publicly available datasets, with mean DICE scores of: 0.832 on brain tumour segmentation, and 0.894/0.841/0.853/0.847/0.941 on left kidney/right kidney/spleen/aorta/liver organ segmentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.