ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Comparison of publicly available artificial intelligence models for pancreatic segmentation on T1-weighted Dixon images.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare three publicly available deep learning models (TotalSegmentator, TotalVibeSegmentator, and PanSegNet) for automated pancreatic segmentation on magnetic resonance images and to evaluate their performance against human annotations in terms of segmentation accuracy, volumetric measurement, and intrapancreatic fat fraction (IPFF) assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty upper abdominal T1-weighted magnetic resonance series acquired using the two-point Dixon method were randomly selected. Three radiologists manually segmented the pancreas, and a ground-truth mask was constructed through a majority vote per voxel. Pancreatic segmentation was also performed using the three artificial intelligence models. Performance was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance, average symmetric surface distance, positive predictive value, sensitivity, Bland-Altman plots, and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) for pancreatic volume and IPFF.
resultsPanSegNet achieved the highest DSC (mean ± standard deviation, 0.883 ± 0.095) and showed no statistically significant difference from the human interobserver DSC (0.896 ± 0.068; p = 0.24). In contrast, TotalVibeSegmentator (0.731 ± 0.105) and TotalSegmentator (0.707 ± 0.142) had significantly lower DSC values compared with the human interobserver average (p < 0.001). For pancreatic volume and IPFF, PanSegNet demonstrated the best agreement with the ground truth (CCC values of 0.958 and 0.993, respectively), followed by TotalSegmentator (0.834 and 0.980) and TotalVibeSegmentator (0.720 and 0.672).
conclusionPanSegNet demonstrated the highest segmentation accuracy and the best agreement with human measurements for both pancreatic volume and IPFF on T1-weighted Dixon images. This model appears to be the most suitable for large-scale studies requiring automated pancreatic segmentation and intrapancreatic fat evaluation.
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.