Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39698664›Full record

ReviewQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

A literature review of artificial intelligence (AI) for medical image segmentation: from AI and explainable AI to trustworthy AI.

Zixuan Teng, Lan Li, Ziqing Xin, Dehui Xiang, Jiang Huang, Hailing Zhou, Fei Shi, Weifang Zhu, Jing Cai, Tao Peng and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. [Lung nodule segmentation method based on multiscale feature interaction and coordinate information].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

11 authors.

Zixuan Teng *School of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Lan Li *Healthy Inspection and Testing Institute, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Huangshi, Huangshi, China.
Ziqing XinSchool of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Dehui Xiang *MIPAV Lab, the School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Jiang Huang *Department of Ophthalmology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Hailing ZhouDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Product Design Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Fei ShiMIPAV Lab, the School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Weifang ZhuMIPAV Lab, the School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Jing CaiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Tao PengSchool of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Xinjian ChenMIPAV Lab, the School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Medical image segmentation is a vital aspect of medical image processing, allowing healthcare professionals to conduct precise and comprehensive lesion analyses. Traditional segmentation methods are often labor intensive and influenced by the subjectivity of individual physicians. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed this field by reducing the workload of physicians, and improving the accuracy and efficiency of disease diagnosis. However, conventional AI techniques are not without challenges. Issues such as inexplicability, uncontrollable decision-making processes, and unpredictability can lead to confusion and uncertainty in clinical decision-making. This review explores the evolution of AI in medical image segmentation, focusing on the development and impact of explainable AI (XAI) and trustworthy AI (TAI). Methods: This review synthesizes existing literature on traditional segmentation methods, AI-based approaches, and the transition from conventional AI to XAI and TAI. The review highlights the key principles and advancements in XAI that aim to address the shortcomings of conventional AI by enhancing transparency and interpretability. It further examines how TAI builds on XAI to improve the reliability, safety, and accountability of AI systems in medical image segmentation. Key Content and Findings: XAI has emerged as a solution to the limitations of conventional AI by providing greater transparency and interpretability, allowing healthcare professionals to better understand and trust AI-driven decisions. However, XAI itself faces challenges, including those related to safety, robustness, and value alignment. TAI has been developed to overcome these challenges, offering a more reliable framework for AI applications in medical image segmentation. By integrating the principles of XAI with enhanced safety and dependability, TAI addresses the critical need for TAI systems in clinical settings. Conclusions: TAI presents a promising future for medical image segmentation, combining the benefits of AI with improved reliability and safety. Thus, TAI is a more viable and dependable option for healthcare applications, and could ultimately lead to better clinical outcomes for patients, and advance the field of medical image processing.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)explainable AI (XAI)Medical image segmentationtrustworthy AI (TAI)

Identifiers

PMID39698664
PMCPMC11651983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.