ArticleNMR in biomedicine2025
A Minimal Annotation Pipeline for Deep Learning Segmentation of Skeletal Muscles.
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.
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.
- Adaptive deep learning for quantification and spatial distribution of abdominal adipose tissue from magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction in adults with a body mass index ≥24 kg/mQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.