Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37595404›Full record

ArticleMedical image analysis2023

Segment anything model for medical image analysis: An experimental study.

Maciej A Mazurowski, Haoyu Dong, Hanxue Gu, Jichen Yang, Nicholas Konz, Yixin Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical image analysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 150 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

150 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Maciej A MazurowskiDepartment of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA; Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA; Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Haoyu DongDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. Electronic address: haoyu.dong151@duke.edu.
Hanxue GuDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Jichen YangDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Nicholas KonzDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Yixin ZhangDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.

Funding

Harmonization of breast MRI dataR01EB031575 · NIBIB · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MAZUROWSKI, MACIEJ A. · 2022 to 2025
$2.1M
Clinical Decision Support for Assessing Pulmonary Embolism using Machine LearningR44HL152825 · NHLBI · MINNESOTA HEALTHSOLUTIONS CORPORATION · PI KRAMER, KEVIN M. · 2022 to 2023
$2.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS R44 HL152825NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031575
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Training segmentation models for medical images continues to be challenging due to the limited availability of data annotations. Segment Anything Model (SAM) is a foundation model trained on over 1 billion annotations, predominantly for natural images, that is intended to segment user-defined objects of interest in an interactive manner. While the model performance on natural images is impressive, medical image domains pose their own set of challenges. Here, we perform an extensive evaluation of SAM's ability to segment medical images on a collection of 19 medical imaging datasets from various modalities and anatomies. In our experiments, we generated point and box prompts for SAM using a standard method that simulates interactive segmentation. We report the following findings: (1) SAM's performance based on single prompts highly varies depending on the dataset and the task, from IoU=0.1135 for spine MRI to IoU=0.8650 for hip X-ray. (2) Segmentation performance appears to be better for well-circumscribed objects with prompts with less ambiguity such as the segmentation of organs in computed tomography and poorer in various other scenarios such as the segmentation of brain tumors. (3) SAM performs notably better with box prompts than with point prompts. (4) SAM outperforms similar methods RITM, SimpleClick, and FocalClick in almost all single-point prompt settings. (5) When multiple-point prompts are provided iteratively, SAM's performance generally improves only slightly while other methods' performance improves to the level that surpasses SAM's point-based performance. We also provide several illustrations for SAM's performance on all tested datasets, iterative segmentation, and SAM's behavior given prompt ambiguity. We conclude that SAM shows impressive zero-shot segmentation performance for certain medical imaging datasets, but moderate to poor performance for others. SAM has the potential to make a significant impact in automated medical image segmentation in medical imaging, but appropriate care needs to be applied when using it. Code for evaluation SAM is made publicly available at https://github.com/mazurowski-lab/segment-anything-medical-evaluation.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsHumansS-AdenosylmethionineTomography, X-Ray ComputedS-AdenosylmethionineDeep learningFoundation modelsSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID37595404
PMCPMC10528428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.