ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Automated CT segmentation for lower extremity tissues in lymphedema evaluation using deep learning.
Article in European radiology, 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.
- Lymphedema imaging and AI: A review of diagnostic modalities, biomarkers, and clinical integration.Biomedical journal · 2026Review
- AI-Empowered Mechanomedicine for Cancer-Related Lymphedema.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesClinical assessment of lymphedema, particularly for lymphedema severity and fluid-fibrotic lesions, remains challenging with traditional methods. We aimed to develop and validate a deep learning segmentation tool for automated tissue component analysis in lower extremity CT scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor development datasets, lower extremity CT venography scans were collected in 118 patients with gynecologic cancers for algorithm training. Reference standards were created by segmentation of fat, muscle, and fluid-fibrotic tissue components using 3D slicer. A deep learning model based on the Unet++ architecture with an EfficientNet-B7 encoder was developed and trained. Segmentation accuracy of the deep learning model was validated in an internal validation set (n = 10) and an external validation set (n = 10) using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and volumetric similarity (VS). A graphical user interface (GUI) tool was developed for the visualization of the segmentation results.
resultsOur deep learning algorithm achieved high segmentation accuracy. Mean DSCs for each component and all components ranged from 0.945 to 0.999 in the internal validation set and 0.946 to 0.999 in the external validation set. Similar performance was observed in the VS, with mean VSs for all components ranging from 0.97 to 0.999. In volumetric analysis, mean volumes of the entire leg and each component did not differ significantly between reference standard and deep learning measurements (p > 0.05). Our GUI displays lymphedema mapping, highlighting segmented fat, muscle, and fluid-fibrotic components in the entire leg.
conclusionOur deep learning algorithm provides an automated segmentation tool enabling accurate segmentation, volume measurement of tissue component, and lymphedema mapping. KEY POINTS: Question Clinical assessment of lymphedema remains challenging, particularly for tissue segmentation and quantitative severity evaluation. Findings A deep learning algorithm achieved DSCs > 0.95 and VS > 0.97 for fat, muscle, and fluid-fibrotic components in internal and external validation datasets. Clinical relevance The developed deep learning tool accurately segments and quantifies lower extremity tissue components on CT scans, enabling automated lymphedema evaluation and mapping with high segmentation accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40377677What 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.