ArticlePloS one2023
Eliminating the need for manual segmentation to determine size and volume from MRI. A proof of concept on segmenting the lateral ventricles.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparisons of artificial intelligence automated segmentation techniques to manual segmentation techniques of the maxilla and maxillary sinus for CT or cone-beam CT scans-a systematic review.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Bridging Brain Science and Technology: How AI Is Shaping the Future of Neuroimaging in Autism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development of Semi-Automatic Dental Image Segmentation Workflows with Root Canal Recognition for Faster Ground Tooth Acquisition.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Gastrointestinal bleeding detection on digital subtraction angiography using convolutional neural networks with and without temporal information.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Imaging biomarkers for detection and longitudinal monitoring of ventricular abnormalities from birth to childhood.World journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Evolution and implementation of radiographic response criteria in neuro-oncology.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Manual segmentation, which is tedious, time-consuming, and operator-dependent, is currently used as the gold standard to validate automatic and semiautomatic methods that quantify geometries from 2D and 3D MR images. This study examines the accuracy of manual segmentation and generalizes a strategy to eliminate its use. Trained individuals manually measured MR lateral ventricles images of normal and hydrocephalus infants from 1 month to 9.5 years of age. We created 3D-printed models of the lateral ventricles from the MRI studies and accurately estimated their volume by water displacement. MRI phantoms were made from the 3D models and images obtained. Using a previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm that employs four features extracted from the images, we estimated the ventricular volume of the phantom images. The algorithm was certified when discrepancies between the volumes-gold standards-yielded by the water displacement device and those measured by the automation were smaller than 2%. Then, we compared volumes after manual segmentation with those obtained with the certified automation. As determined by manual segmentation, lateral ventricular volume yielded an inter and intra-operator variation up to 50% and 48%, respectively, while manually segmenting saggital images generated errors up to 71%. These errors were determined by direct comparisons with the volumes yielded by the certified automation. The errors induced by manual segmentation are large enough to adversely affect decisions that may lead to less-than-optimal treatment; therefore, we suggest avoiding manual segmentation whenever possible.
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.