ArticleScientific reports2024
Boundary guidance network for medical image segmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coordinate-conditioned feature enhancement and progressive distance-field boundary supervision for pterygium segmentation in anterior segment images.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Multi-scale and edge-aware IFGNet for precise skin lesion segmentation in high-resolution dermoscopic images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Morphology-Aware Deep Features and Frozen Filters for Surgical Instrument Segmentation with LLM-Based Scene Summarization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Automated quantification of central corneal epithelial thickness for the diagnosis of limbal stem cell deficiency.PloS one · 2026Article
- SegMan-based dual-prior network with boundary-augmented hybrid attention for robust skin lesion segmentation.PloS one · 2026Article
- Alternate encoder and dual decoder CNN-Transformer networks for medical image segmentation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate segmentation of the tumor area is crucial for the treatment and prognosis of patients with bladder cancer. Cystoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing bladder tumors. However, The vast majority of current work uses deep learning to identify and segment tumors from CT and MRI findings, and rarely involves cystoscopy findings. Accurately segmenting bladder tumors remains a great challenge due to their diverse morphology and fuzzy boundaries. In order to solve the above problems, this paper proposes a medical image segmentation network with boundary guidance called boundary guidance network. This network combines local features extracted by CNNs and long-range dependencies between different levels inscribed by Parallel ViT, which can capture tumor features more effectively. The Boundary extracted module is designed to extract boundary features and utilize the boundary features to guide the decoding process. Foreground-background dual-channel decoding is performed by boundary integrated module. Experimental results on our proposed new cystoscopic bladder tumor dataset (BTD) show that our method can efficiently perform accurate segmentation of tumors and retain more boundary information, achieving an IoU score of 91.3%, a Hausdorff Distance of 10.43, an mAP score of 85.3%, and a F1 score of 94.8%. On BTD and three other public datasets, our model achieves the best scores compared to state-of-the-art methods, which proves the effectiveness of our model for common medical image segmentation.
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.