ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Attention-gated U-Net networks for simultaneous axial/sagittal planes segmentation of injured spinal cords.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Unsupervised generative AI for enhancing brain tumor segmentation in multi-center, incomplete real-world data scenarios.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence demonstrates potential to enhance orthopaedic imaging across multiple modalities: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Spine MRI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Attention-gated U-Net networks for simultaneous axial/sagittal planes segmentation of injured spinal cords.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Monitoring morphometric drift in lifelong learning segmentation of the spinal cord.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging is currently the gold standard for the evaluation of spinal cord injuries. Automatic analysis of these injuries is however challenging, as MRI resolutions vary for different planes of analysis and physiological features are often distorted around these injuries. This study proposes a new CNN-based segmentation method in which information is exchanged between two networks analyzing the scans from different planes. Our aim was to develop a robust method for automatic segmentation of the spinal cord in patients having suffered traumatic injuries. The database consisted of 106 sagittal MRI scans from 94 patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries. Our method used an innovative approach where the scans were analyzed in series under the axial and sagittal plane by two different convolutional networks. The results were compared with those of Deepseg 2D from the Spinal Cord Toolbox (SCT), which was taken as state-of-the-art. Comparisons were evaluated using K-Fold cross-validation combined with statistical t-test results on separate test data. Our method achieved significantly better results than Deepseg 2D, with an average Dice coefficient of 0.95 against 0.88 for Deepseg 2D (p <0.001). Other metrics were also used to compare the segmentations, all of which showed significantly better results for our approach. In this study, we introduce a robust method for spinal cord segmentation which is capable of adequately segmenting spinal cords affected by traumatic injuries, improving upon the methods contained in SCT.
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.