Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40485725›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

A deep learning aided bone marrow segmentation of quantitative fat MRI for myelofibrosis patients.

Humera Tariq, Lubomir Hadjiiski, Dariya Malyarenko, Moshe Talpaz, Kristen Pettit, Gary D Luker, Brian D Ross, Thomas L Chenevert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Humera TariqDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Lubomir HadjiiskiDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Dariya MalyarenkoDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Moshe TalpazDepartment of Internal Medicine-Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Kristen PettitDepartment of Internal Medicine-Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Gary D LukerDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Brian D RossDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Thomas L ChenevertDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

Funding

Elimination of Instrumental Bias for Quantitative Diffusion Imaging in Clinical Oncology TrialsR01CA190299 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MALYARENKO, DARIYA I. · 2015 to 2025
$6.4M
Quantitative DW-MRI for Early Breast Cancer Treatment Response AssessmentU01CA166104 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHENEVERT, THOMAS L, GALBAN, CRAIG J · 2012 to 2019
$4.1M
University of Michigan Quantitative Co-Clinical Imaging Research ResourceU24CA237683 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHENEVERT, THOMAS L, LUKER, GARY D · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
Imaging Disease Heterogeneity and Response to Therapy in MyelofibrosisR01CA238023 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUKER, GARY D, ROSS, BRIAN D. · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA190299NCI NIH HHS R01 CA238023NCI NIH HHS U01 CA166104NCI NIH HHS U24 CA237683
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To automate bone marrow segmentation within pelvic bones in quantitative fat MRI of myelofibrosis (MF) patients using deep-learning (DL) U-Net models. Methods: Automated segmentation of bone marrow (BM) was evaluated for four U-Net models: 2D U-Net, 2D attention U-Net (2D A-U-Net), 3D U-Net and 3D attention U-Net (3D A-U-Net). An experienced annotator performed the delineation on in-phase (IP) pelvic MRI slices to mark the boundaries of BM regions within two pelvic bones: proximal femur and posterior ilium. The dataset comprising volumetric images of 58 MF patients was split into 32 training, 6 validation and 20 test sub-sets. Model performance was assessed using conventional metrics: average Jaccard Index (AJI), average Volume Error (AVE), average Hausdorff Distance (AHD), and average Volume Intersection Ratio (VIR). Iterative model optimization was performed based on maximizing validation sub-set AJI. Wilcoxon's rank sum test with Bonferroni corrected significance threshold of p<0.003 was used to compare DL segmentation models for test sub-set. Results: 2D segmentation models performed best for iliac BM with achieved scores of 95-96% for the VIR and 87-88% for AJI agreement with expert annotations on the test set. Similar performance was observed for femoral BM segmentation with slightly better VIR but worse AJI agreement for U-Net (94% and 86%) versus A-U-Net (92% and 87%). 2D models also exhibited lower AVE variability (8-9%) and ilium AHD (16 mm). The 3D segmentation models have shown marginally higher errors (AHD of 19-20 mm for ilium and 10-12% AVE-SD for both bones) and generally lower agreement scores (VIR of 91-93% for ilium and 89-91% for femur with 85-86% AJI).Pairwise comparison across four U-Nets for three metrics (AHD, AJI, AVE) showed that AJI and AHD performance was not significantly different for 3D U-Net versus 3D A-U-Net and for 2D U-Net versus 2D A-U-Net. Except for AVE, for majority of performance metric comparisons 2D versus 3D model differences were significant in both bones (p<0.001). Conclusion: All four tested U-Net models effectively automated BM segmentation in pelvic MRI of MF patients. The 2D A-U-Net was found best overall for BM segmentation in both femur and ilium.

Indexed as

in-phase (IP)myelofibrosispelvic MRIposterior iliumproton density fat fraction (PDFF)proximal femursegmentationU-Net

Identifiers

PMID40485725
PMCPMC12140989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.