ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Deep learning-based segmentation of gallbladder cancer on abdominal computed tomography scans: a multicenter study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. 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.
- A novel machine learning-based model for precise prediction of postoperative recurrence in gallbladder cancer: development and multicenter validation across four centers.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo train and validate segmentation models for automated segmentation of gallbladder cancer (GBC) lesions from contrast-enhanced CT images. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with pathologically proven treatment naïve GBC who underwent a contrast-enhanced CT scan at four different tertiary care referral hospitals. The training and validation cohort comprised CT scans of 317 patients (center 1). The internal test cohort comprised a temporally independent cohort (n = 29) from center 1 (internal test 1). The external test cohort comprised CT scans from three centers [ (n = 85)]. We trained the state-of-the-art 2D and 3D image segmentation models, SAM Adapter, MedSAM, 3D TransUNet, SAM-Med3D, and 3D-nnU-Net, for automated segmentation of the GBC. The models' performance for GBC segmentation on the test datasets was assessed via dice score and intersection over union (IoU) using manual segmentation as the reference standard.
resultsThe 2D models performed better than 3D models. Overall, MedSAM achieved the highest dice and IoU scores on both the internal [mean dice (SD) 0.776 (0.106) and mean IoU 0.653 (0.133)] and external [mean dice (SD) 0.763 (0.098) and mean IoU 0.637 (0.116)] test sets. Among the 3D models, TransUNet showed the best segmentation performance with mean dice (SD) and IoU (SD) of 0.479 (0.268) and 0.356 (0.235) in the internal test and 0.409 (0.339) and 0.317 (0.283) in the external test sets. The segmentation performance was not associated with GBC morphology. There was weak correlation between the dice/IoU and the size of the GBC lesions for any segmentation model.
conclusionWe trained 2D and 3D GBC segmentation models on a large dataset and validated these models on external datasets. MedSAM, a 2D prompt-based foundational model, achieved the best segmentation performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40167645What 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.