ArticleScientific reports2025
A concept for fully automated segmentation of bone in ultrasound imaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Masked pretraining of U-Net for ultrasound image segmentation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- SwinDAF3D: Pyramid Swin Transformers with Deep Attentive Features for Automated Finger Joint Segmentation in 3D Ultrasound Images for Rheumatoid Arthritis Assessment.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
This study proposes a novel concept for the automated and computerised segmentation of ultrasound images of bone based on motion information. Force is applied on the heel region using the ultrasound probe and then removed while recording the video of the bone using ultrasound. The interface between the bone and surrounding tissues is the region that moves with maximum speed. This concept is utilised to determine a map of movement, where speed is the criterion used for the bone segmentation from the surrounding tissues. To achieve that, the image is subdivided into regions of uniform sizes, followed by tracking individual regions in the successive frames of the video using an optical flow algorithm. The average movement speed is calculated for the regions. Then, the regions with the higher speed are identified as bone surfaces. It is given as the initial contour for the Chan-Vese algorithm to achieve smoother bone surfaces. Then, the final output from the Chan-Vese is post-processed using a boundary tracing algorithm to get the last automated bone segmented output. The segmented outcomes are compared against the manually segmented images from the experts to determine the accuracy. Bhattacharyya distances are used to calculate the accuracy of the algorithmic and manual output. The quantitative results from Bhattacharyya distances indicated an excellent overlap between algorithmic and manual works (average ± STDEV Bhattacharyya distance: 0.06285 ± 0.002051). The bone-segmented output from the optical flow algorithm is compared with the model output and the texture-based segmentation method's output. The work from the motion estimation methods has better segmentation accuracy than the model and texture segmentation methods. The results of this study suggest that this method is the first attempt to segment the heel bone from the ultrasound image using motion information.
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.