Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957426›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2023

Denoising diffusion-based MRI to CT image translation enables automated spinal segmentation.

Robert Graf, Joachim Schmitt, Sarah Schlaeger, Hendrik Kristian Möller, Vasiliki Sideri-Lampretsa, Anjany Sekuboyina, Sandro Manuel Krieg, Benedikt Wiestler, Bjoern Menze, Daniel Rueckert and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Rule-Based Synthesis of Microscopy Images by Diffusion Refinement.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Staging of prostate Cancer with ultra-fast PSMA-PET scans enhanced by AI.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Robert GrafDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. robert.graf@tum.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6656-3680
Joachim SchmittDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sarah SchlaegerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hendrik Kristian MöllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Vasiliki Sideri-LampretsaInstitut Für KI Und Informatik in Der Medizin, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Anjany SekuboyinaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sandro Manuel KriegDepartment of Neurosurgery, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Benedikt WiestlerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bjoern MenzeDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel RueckertInstitut Für KI Und Informatik in Der Medizin, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan Stefan KirschkeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Technical University of Munich · DETUM Klinikum · DEUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomated segmentation of spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a vital role both scientifically and clinically. However, accurately delineating posterior spine structures is challenging.

methodsThis retrospective study, approved by the ethical committee, involved translating T1-weighted and T2-weighted images into computed tomography (CT) images in a total of 263 pairs of CT/MR series. Landmark-based registration was performed to align image pairs. We compared two-dimensional (2D) paired - Pix2Pix, denoising diffusion implicit models (DDIM) image mode, DDIM noise mode - and unpaired (SynDiff, contrastive unpaired translation) image-to-image translation using "peak signal-to-noise ratio" as quality measure. A publicly available segmentation network segmented the synthesized CT datasets, and Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) were evaluated on in-house test sets and the "MRSpineSeg Challenge" volumes. The 2D findings were extended to three-dimensional (3D) Pix2Pix and DDIM.

results2D paired methods and SynDiff exhibited similar translation performance and DCS on paired data. DDIM image mode achieved the highest image quality. SynDiff, Pix2Pix, and DDIM image mode demonstrated similar DSC (0.77). For craniocaudal axis rotations, at least two landmarks per vertebra were required for registration. The 3D translation outperformed the 2D approach, resulting in improved DSC (0.80) and anatomically accurate segmentations with higher spatial resolution than that of the original MRI series.

conclusionsTwo landmarks per vertebra registration enabled paired image-to-image translation from MRI to CT and outperformed all unpaired approaches. The 3D techniques provided anatomically correct segmentations, avoiding underprediction of small structures like the spinous process. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study addresses the unresolved issue of translating spinal MRI to CT, making CT-based tools usable for MRI data. It generates whole spine segmentation, previously unavailable in MRI, a prerequisite for biomechanical modeling and feature extraction for clinical applications. KEY POINTS: • Unpaired image translation lacks in converting spine MRI to CT effectively. • Paired translation needs registration with two landmarks per vertebra at least. • Paired image-to-image enables segmentation transfer to other domains. • 3D translation enables super resolution from MRI to CT. • 3D translation prevents underprediction of small structures.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesSpineDeep learningImage processing (computer assisted)Magnetic resonance imagingSpineVertebral body

Identifiers

PMID37957426
PMCPMC10643734
OpenAlexW4388647711

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.