Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40057558›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A concept for fully automated segmentation of bone in ultrasound imaging.

Ananth Hari Ramakrishnan, Muthaiah Rajappa, Kannan Krithivasan, Nachiappan Chockalingam, Panagiotis E Chatzistergos, Rengarajan Amirtharajan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Ananth Hari RamakrishnanSchool of Computing, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, 613401, India.
Muthaiah RajappaSchool of Computing, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, 613401, India.
Kannan KrithivasanSchool of Computing, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, 613401, India.
Nachiappan ChockalingamCentre for Biomechanics and Rehabilitation Technologies, School of Health, Science and Wellbeing, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DE, UK.
Panagiotis E ChatzistergosCentre for Biomechanics and Rehabilitation Technologies, School of Health, Science and Wellbeing, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DE, UK.
Rengarajan AmirtharajanSchool of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, 613401, India. amir@ece.sastra.edu.

Funding

UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI) grant DST/INT/UK/P-145/2016
6 · The paper itself

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

Bone and BonesImage Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsHumansUltrasonographyChan–VeseHeel boneMap of movementOptical-flowSegmentation algorithm

Identifiers

PMID40057558
PMCPMC11890616

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.