ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024
Accurate object localization facilitates automatic esophagus segmentation in deep learning.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Developing a segmentation cascade deep learning network based on automated prompts.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, automatic esophagus segmentation remains a challenging task due to its small size, low contrast, and large shape variation. We aimed to improve the performance of esophagus segmentation in deep learning by applying a strategy that involves locating the object first and then performing the segmentation task.
methodsA total of 100 cases with thoracic computed tomography scans from two publicly available datasets were used in this study. A modified CenterNet, an object location network, was employed to locate the center of the esophagus for each slice. Subsequently, the 3D U-net and 2D U-net_coarse models were trained to segment the esophagus based on the predicted object center. A 2D U-net_fine model was trained based on the updated object center according to the 3D U-net model. The dice similarity coefficient and the 95% Hausdorff distance were used as quantitative evaluation indexes for the delineation performance. The characteristics of the automatically delineated esophageal contours by the 2D U-net and 3D U-net models were summarized. Additionally, the impact of the accuracy of object localization on the delineation performance was analyzed. Finally, the delineation performance in different segments of the esophagus was also summarized.
resultsThe mean dice coefficient of the 3D U-net, 2D U-net_coarse, and 2D U-net_fine models were 0.77, 0.81, and 0.82, respectively. The 95% Hausdorff distance for the above models was 6.55, 3.57, and 3.76, respectively. Compared with the 2D U-net, the 3D U-net has a lower incidence of delineating wrong objects and a higher incidence of missing objects. After using the fine object center, the average dice coefficient was improved by 5.5% in the cases with a dice coefficient less than 0.75, while that value was only 0.3% in the cases with a dice coefficient greater than 0.75. The dice coefficients were lower for the esophagus between the orifice of the inferior and the pulmonary bifurcation compared with the other regions.
conclusionThe 3D U-net model tended to delineate fewer incorrect objects but also miss more objects. Two-stage strategy with accurate object location could enhance the robustness of the segmentation model and significantly improve the esophageal delineation performance, especially for cases with poor delineation results.
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.