ArticlePloS one2024
Efficient data labeling strategies for automated muscle segmentation in lower leg MRIs of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease patients.
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to develop efficient data labeling strategies for ground truth segmentation in lower-leg magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) and to develop an automated muscle segmentation model using different labeling approaches. The impact of using unlabeled data on model performance was further examined. Using axial T1-weighted MRIs of 120 patients with CMT (60 each with mild and severe intramuscular fat infiltration), we compared the performance of segmentation models obtained using several different labeling strategies. The effect of leveraging unlabeled data on segmentation performance was evaluated by comparing the performances of few-supervised, semi-supervised (mean teacher model), and fully-supervised learning models. We employed a 2D U-Net architecture and assessed its performance by comparing the average Dice coefficients (ADC) using paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction. Among few-supervised models utilizing 10% labeled data, labeling three slices (the uppermost, central, and lowermost slices) per subject exhibited a significantly higher ADC (90.84±3.46%) compared with other strategies using a single image slice per subject (uppermost, 87.79±4.41%; central, 89.42±4.07%; lowermost, 89.29±4.71%, p < 0.0001) or all slices per subject (85.97±9.82%, p < 0.0001). Moreover, semi-supervised learning significantly enhanced the segmentation performance. The semi-supervised model using the three-slices strategy showed the highest segmentation performance (91.03±3.67%) among 10% labeled set models. Fully-supervised model showed an ADC of 91.39±3.76. A three-slice-based labeling strategy for ground truth segmentation is the most efficient method for developing automated muscle segmentation models of CMT lower leg MRI. Additionally, semi-supervised learning with unlabeled data significantly enhances segmentation performance.
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.