Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40463734›Full record

ArticleSimplifying medical ultrasound : 5th international workshop, ASMUS 2024, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2024, Marrakesh, Morocco, October 6, 2024, proceedings. ASMUS (Workshop) (5th : 2024 : Marrakech, Morocco)2025

Interactive Segmentation Model for Placenta Segmentation from 3D Ultrasound images.

Hao Li, Baris Oguz, Gabriel Arenas, Xing Yao, Jiacheng Wang, Alison Pouch, Brett Byram, Nadav Schwartz, Ipek Oguz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Simplifying medical ultrasound : 5th international workshop, ASMUS 2024, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2024, Marrakesh, Morocco, October 6, 2024, proceedings. ASMUS (Workshop) (5th : 2024 : Marrakech, Morocco), 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. PRISM Lite: A lightweight model for interactive 3D placenta segmentation in ultrasound.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Hao LiVanderbilt University.
Baris OguzUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Gabriel ArenasUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Xing YaoVanderbilt University.
Jiacheng WangVanderbilt University.
Alison PouchUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Brett ByramVanderbilt University.
Nadav SchwartzUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Ipek OguzVanderbilt University.

Funding

Developing a multi-modality, paradigm-shifting approach for in vivo assessment of the human placenta and the impact of maternal nutrition on its development and functionU01HD087180 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LICHT, DANIEL JACQUES, SCHWARTZ, NADAV · 2015 to 2015
$4.3M
A placenta-based strategy for improved clinical prediction of fetal growth trajectory using automated image analysis of placental morphology and vascularityR01HD109739 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI Ipek Oguz, Nadav Schwartz · 2022 to 2026
$3.1M
Ultrasound clutter and noise improvements applied to echocardiographic left atrial appendage visualizationR01HL156034 · NHLBI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BYRAM, BRETT C, EAGLE, SUSAN · 2021 to 2024
$2.3M
Placental morphology and serum biomarkers to predict adverse pregnancy outcomeR03HD069742 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SCHWARTZ, NADAV · 2012 to 2013
$156k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL156034NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD109739NICHD NIH HHS R03 HD069742NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD087180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Placenta volume measurement from 3D ultrasound images is critical for predicting pregnancy outcomes, and manual annotation is the gold standard. However, such manual annotation is expensive and time consuming. Automated segmentation algorithms can often successfully segment the placenta, but these methods may not consistently produce robust segmentations suitable for practical use. Recently, inspired by the Segment Anything Model (SAM), deep learning-based interactive segmentation models have been widely applied in the medical imaging domain. These models produce a segmentation from visual prompts provided to indicate the target region, which may offer a feasible solution for practical use. However, none of these models are specifically designed for interactively segmenting 3D ultrasound images, which remain challenging due to the inherent noise of this modality. In this paper, we evaluate publicly available state-of-the-art 3D interactive segmentation models in contrast to a human-in-the-loop approach for the placenta segmentation task. The Dice score, normalized surface Dice, averaged symmetric surface distance, and 95-percent Hausdorff distance are used as evaluation metrics. We consider a Dice score of 0.95 a successful segmentation. Our results indicate that the human-in-the-loop segmentation model reaches this standard. Moreover, we assess the efficiency of the human-in-the-loop model as a function of the amount of prompts. Our results demonstrate that the human-in-the-loop model is both effective and efficient for interactive placenta segmentation. The code is available at https://github.com/MedICL-VU/PRISM-placenta.

Indexed as

3D Ultrasound (3DUS) imageDeep learningInteractive segmentationPlacenta segmentationScribbles

Identifiers

PMID40463734
PMCPMC12128789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.