Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38141568›Full record

ArticleComputerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society2024

Evaluation of mediastinal lymph node segmentation of heterogeneous CT data with full and weak supervision.

Alireza Mehrtash, Erik Ziegler, Tagwa Idris, Bhanusupriya Somarouthu, Trinity Urban, Ann S LaCasce, Heather Jacene, Annick D Van Den Abbeele, Steve Pieper, Gordon Harris and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Segmentation of mediastinal lymph nodes in CT with anatomical priors.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
    Article
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

12 authors.

Alireza MehrtashDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: alireza.mehrtash@gmail.com.
Erik ZieglerYunu, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Tagwa IdrisDepartment of Radiology, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Bhanusupriya SomarouthuYunu, Inc., Cary, NC, USA; Department of Radiology, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Trinity UrbanClario, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA.
Ann S LaCasceDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Heather JaceneDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Boston, MA, USA; Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Annick D Van Den AbbeeleDepartment of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, USA; Department of Radiology, Mass General Brigham, USA; Harvard Medical School, USA.
Steve PieperIsomics Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Gordon HarrisYunu, Inc., Cary, NC, USA; Department of Radiology, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Ron KikinisHarvard Medical School, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, USA.
Tina KapurDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

VectorP30CA006516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI JENNIFER W MACK · 1985 to 2026
$330.6M
Training and DisseminationP41EB015902 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI PUJOL, SONIA · 2012 to 2022
$20.9M
Image Guided Therapy Center - Ultrasound-based sensor system for the monitoring of COVID-19 patientsP41EB015898 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI TEMPANY, CLARE M · 2012 to 2021
$18.9M
TRD 3 - Enabling Technologies for Intraprocedural GuidanceP41EB028741 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Nobuhiko Hata, CLARE M TEMPANY · 2021 to 2026
$10.7M
Lymph Node Quantification System for Multisite Clinical TrialsR01CA235589 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GORDON J HARRIS, Ron Kikinis · 2019 to 2026
$4.5M
CaNCURE: Cancer Nanomedicine Co-ops For Undergraduate Research ExperiencesR25CA174650 · NCI · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SRINIVAS SRIDHAR · 2014 to 2026
$3.4M
Extensible Open Source Zero-Footprint Web Viewer for Cancer Imaging ResearchU24CA258511 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GORDON J HARRIS · 2023 to 2026
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006516NCI NIH HHS R01 CA235589NCI NIH HHS R25 CA174650NCI NIH HHS U24 CA258511NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015898NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015902NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB028741
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate lymph node size estimation is critical for staging cancer patients, initial therapeutic management, and assessing response to therapy. Current standard practice for quantifying lymph node size is based on a variety of criteria that use uni-directional or bi-directional measurements. Segmentation in 3D can provide more accurate evaluations of the lymph node size. Fully convolutional neural networks (FCNs) have achieved state-of-the-art results in segmentation for numerous medical imaging applications, including lymph node segmentation. Adoption of deep learning segmentation models in clinical trials often faces numerous challenges. These include lack of pixel-level ground truth annotations for training, generalizability of the models on unseen test domains due to the heterogeneity of test cases and variation of imaging parameters. In this paper, we studied and evaluated the performance of lymph node segmentation models on a dataset that was completely independent of the one used to create the models. We analyzed the generalizability of the models in the face of a heterogeneous dataset and assessed the potential effects of different disease conditions and imaging parameters. Furthermore, we systematically compared fully-supervised and weakly-supervised methods in this context. We evaluated the proposed methods using an independent dataset comprising 806 mediastinal lymph nodes from 540 unique patients. The results show that performance achieved on the independent test set is comparable to that on the training set. Furthermore, neither the underlying disease nor the heterogeneous imaging parameters impacted the performance of the models. Finally, the results indicate that our weakly-supervised method attains 90%- 91% of the performance achieved by the fully supervised training.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalNeural Networks, ComputerHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLymph NodesNeoplasm StagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedFully Convolutional Neural NetworksLymph nodesSegmentationWeak supervision

Identifiers

PMID38141568
PMCPMC10807363

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.