Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37216154›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023

Fast 3D YOLOv3 based standard plane regression of vertebral bodies in intra-operative CBCT volumes.

Sebastian Doerrich, Florian Kordon, Felix Denzinger, Jan S El Barbari, Maxim Privalov, Sven Y Vetter, Andreas Maier, Holger Kunze

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sebastian DoerrichOtto-Friedrich University Bamberg, Chair of Explainable Machine Learning, Bamberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4693-3282
Florian KordonFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Pattern Recognition Lab, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1240-5809
Felix DenzingerFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Pattern Recognition Lab, Erlangen, Germany.
Jan S El BarbariBG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-3436
Maxim PrivalovBG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Sven Y VetterBG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Andreas MaierFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Pattern Recognition Lab, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9550-5284
Holger KunzeFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Pattern Recognition Lab, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7021-2370
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEKlinikum Ludwigshafen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Mobile C-arm systems represent the standard imaging devices within the field of spine surgery. In addition to 2D imaging, they allow for 3D scans while preserving unrestricted patient access. For viewing, the acquired volumes are adjusted such that their anatomical standard planes align with the axes of the viewing modality. This difficult and time-consuming step is currently performed manually by the leading surgeon. This process is automatized within this work to improve the usability of C-arm systems. Thereby, the spinal region consisting of multiple vertebrae and the standard planes of all vertebrae being of interest to the surgeon need to be taken into account. Approach: An object detection algorithm based on the you only look once version 3 architecture, adapted to 3D inputs, is compared with a segmentation-based approach employing a 3D U-Net. Both algorithms are trained on a dataset of 440 and tested on 218 spinal volumes. Results: Although the detection-based algorithm is slightly inferior concerning the detection (91% versus 97% accuracy), localization (1.26 mm versus 0.74 mm error) and alignment accuracy (5.00 deg versus 4.73 deg error), it outperforms the segmentation-based one in terms of speed (5 s versus 38 s). Conclusions: Both algorithms show similar good results. However, the speed gain of the detection-based algorithm, resulting in a run time of 5 s, makes it more suitable for usage in an intra-operative scenario.

Indexed as

flat panel computed tomographymultiplanar reconstructionorthopedicsplane regression

Identifiers

PMID37216154
PMCPMC10196442
OpenAlexW4377097629

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.