ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2025
Deep learning-based automatic cranial implant design through direct defect shape prediction and its comparison study.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Defects to human crania are one kind of head bone damages, and cranial implants can be used to repair the defected crania. The automation of the implant design process is crucial in reducing the corresponding therapy time. Taking the cranial implant design problem as a special kind of shape completion task, an automatic cranial implant design workflow is proposed, which consists of a deep neural network for the direct shape prediction of the missing part of the defective cranium and conventional post-processing steps to refine the automatically generated implant. To evaluate the proposed workflow, we employ cross-validation and report an average Dice Similarity Score and boundary Dice Similarity Score of 0.81 and 0.81, respectively. We also measure the surface distance error using the 95th quantile of the Hausdorff Distance, which yields an average of 3.01 mm. Comparison with the manual cranial implant design procedure also revealed the convenience of the proposed workflow. In addition, a plugin is developed for 3D Slicer, which implements the proposed automatic cranial implant design workflow and can facilitate the end-users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40314711What 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.