ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2023
Segmentation quality assessment by automated detection of erroneous surface regions in medical images.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- In search of truth: evaluating concordance of AI-based anatomy segmentation models.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2026Article
- Clinical validation of fully automated (peri-)articular tissue analysis for assessing osteoarthritis progression: A narrative review.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in knee osteoarthritis: A comprehensive review for 2022.Osteoarthritis imaging · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the advancement in deep learning-based semantic segmentation methods, which have achieved accuracy levels of field experts in many computer vision applications, the same general approaches may frequently fail in 3D medical image segmentation due to complex tissue structures, noisy acquisition, disease-related pathologies, as well as the lack of sufficiently large datasets with associated annotations. For expeditious diagnosis and quantitative image analysis in large-scale clinical trials, there is a compelling need to predict segmentation quality without ground truth. In this paper, we propose a deep learning framework to locate erroneous regions on the boundary surfaces of segmented objects for quality control and assessment of segmentation. A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is explored to learn the boundary related image features of multi-objects that can be used to identify location-specific inaccurate segmentation. The predicted error locations can facilitate efficient user interaction for interactive image segmentation (IIS). We evaluated the proposed method on two data sets: Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) 3D knee MRI and 3D calf muscle MRI. The average sensitivity scores of 0.95 and 0.92, and the average positive predictive values of 0.78 and 0.91 were achieved, respectively, for erroneous surface region detection of knee cartilage segmentation and calf muscle segmentation. Our experiment demonstrated promising performance of the proposed method for segmentation quality assessment by automated detection of erroneous surface regions in medical images.
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.