ArticleJournal of digital imaging2023
Intra-operator Repeatability of Manual Segmentations of the Hip Muscles on Clinical Magnetic Resonance Images.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Amputated Limb Gluteus Medius is Biomechanically Disadvantaged in Patients with Unilateral Transfemoral Amputation.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Automatic segmentation of skeletal muscles from MR images using modified U-Net and a novel data augmentation approach.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Towards a comprehensive biomechanical assessment of the elderly combiningFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- [Study on the evaluation of glenoid bone defects by MRI three-dimensional reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The manual segmentation of muscles on magnetic resonance images is the gold standard procedure to reconstruct muscle volumes from medical imaging data and extract critical information for clinical and research purposes. (Semi)automatic methods have been proposed to expedite the otherwise lengthy process. These, however, rely on manual segmentations. Nonetheless, the repeatability of manual muscle volume segmentations performed on clinical MRI data has not been thoroughly assessed. When conducted, volumetric assessments often disregard the hip muscles. Therefore, one trained operator performed repeated manual segmentations (n = 3) of the iliopsoas (n = 34) and gluteus medius (n = 40) muscles on coronal T1-weighted MRI scans, acquired on 1.5 T scanners on a clinical population of patients elected for hip replacement surgery. Reconstructed muscle volumes were divided in sub-volumes and compared in terms of volume variance (normalized variance of volumes - nVV), shape (Jaccard Index-JI) and surface similarity (maximal Hausdorff distance-HD), to quantify intra-operator repeatability. One-way repeated measures ANOVA (or equivalent) tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were conducted to assess statistical significance. For both muscles, repeated manual segmentations were highly similar to one another (nVV: 2-6%, JI > 0.78, HD < 15 mm). However, shape and surface similarity were significantly lower when muscle extremities were included in the segmentations (e.g., iliopsoas: HD -12.06 to 14.42 mm, P < 0.05). Our findings show that the manual segmentation of hip muscle volumes on clinical MRI scans provides repeatable results over time. Nonetheless, extreme care should be taken in the segmentation of muscle extremities.
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.