Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40390325›Full record

ArticleNMR in biomedicine2025

A Minimal Annotation Pipeline for Deep Learning Segmentation of Skeletal Muscles.

Pierre-Yves Baudin, Fabian Balsiger, Lea Beck, Jean-Marc Boisserie, Sophie Jouan, Benjamin Marty, Harmen Reyngoudt, Olivier Scheidegger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NMR in biomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Pierre-Yves BaudinInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, NMR Laboratory, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8955-4648
Fabian BalsigerSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Lea BeckSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Jean-Marc BoisserieInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, NMR Laboratory, Paris, France.
Sophie JouanInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, NMR Laboratory, Paris, France.
Benjamin MartyInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, NMR Laboratory, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-647X
Harmen ReyngoudtInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, NMR Laboratory, Paris, France.
Olivier ScheideggerSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Translating quantitative skeletal muscle MRI biomarkers into clinics requires efficient automatic segmentation methods. The purpose of this work is to investigate a simple yet effective iterative methodology for building a high-quality automatic segmentation model while minimizing the manual annotation effort. We used a retrospective database of quantitative MRI examinations (n = 70) of healthy and pathological thighs for training a nnU-Net segmentation model. Healthy volunteers and patients with various neuromuscular diseases, broadly categorized as dystrophic, inflammatory, neurogenic, and unlabeled NMDs. We designed an iterative procedure, progressively adding cases to the training set and using a simple visual five-level rating scale to judge the validity of generated segmentations for clinical use. On an independent test set (n = 20), we assessed the quality of the segmentation in 13 individual thigh muscles using standard segmentation metrics-dice coefficient (DICE) and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95)-and quantitative biomarkers-cross-sectional area (CSA), fat fraction (FF), and water-T1/T2. We obtained high-quality segmentations (DICE = 0.88 ± 0.15/0.86 ± 0.14, HD95 = 6.35 ± 12.33/6.74 ± 11.57 mm), comparable to recent works, although with a smaller training set (n = 30). Inter-rater agreement on the five-level scale was fair to moderate but showed progressive improvement of the segmentation model along with the iterations. We observed limited differences from manually delineated segmentations on the quantitative outcomes (MAD: CSA = 65.2 mm

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMuscle, SkeletalAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedautomatic segmentationneuromuscular disordersnnU‐netquantitative MRIskeletal muscles

Identifiers

PMID40390325
PMCPMC12089922

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.