ArticleScientific reports2024
Efficient musculoskeletal annotation using free-form deformation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Traditionally, constructing training datasets for automatic muscle segmentation from medical images involved skilled operators, leading to high labor costs and limited scalability. To address this issue, we developed a tool that enables efficient annotation by non-experts and assessed its effectiveness for training an automatic segmentation network. Our system allows users to deform a template three-dimensional (3D) anatomical model to fit a target magnetic-resonance image using free-form deformation with independent control points for axial, sagittal, and coronal directions. This method simplifies the annotation process by allowing non-experts to intuitively adjust the model, enabling simultaneous annotation of all muscles in the template. We evaluated the quality of the tool-assisted segmentation performed by non-experts, which achieved a Dice coefficient greater than 0.75 compared to expert segmentation, without significant errors such as mislabeling adjacent muscles or omitting musculature. An automatic segmentation network trained with datasets created using this tool demonstrated performance comparable to or superior to that of networks trained with expert-generated datasets. This innovative tool significantly reduces the time and labor costs associated with dataset creation for automatic muscle segmentation, potentially revolutionizing medical image annotation and accelerating the development of deep learning-based segmentation networks in various clinical applications.
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.