ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2024
Evaluating Medical Image Segmentation Models Using Augmentation.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical imagesegmentation is an essential step in both clinical and research applications, and automated segmentation models-such as TotalSegmentator-have become ubiquitous. However, robust methods for validating the accuracy of these models remain limited, and manual inspection is often necessary before the segmentation masks produced by these models can be used.
methodsTo address this gap, we have developed a novel validation framework for segmentation models, leveraging data augmentation to assess model consistency. We produced segmentation masks for both the original and augmented scans, and we calculated the alignment metrics between these segmentation masks.
resultsOur results demonstrate strong correlation between the segmentation quality of the original scan and the average alignment between the masks of the original and augmented CT scans. These results were further validated by supporting metrics, including the coefficient of variance and the average symmetric surface distance, indicating that agreement with augmented-scan segmentation masks is a valid proxy for segmentation quality.
conclusionsOverall, our framework offers a pipeline for evaluating segmentation performance without relying on manually labeled ground truth data, establishing a foundation for future advancements in automated medical image analysis.
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.