ArticleJournal of imaging2025
A Study on Energy Consumption in AI-Driven Medical Image Segmentation.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating and Mitigating Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions in Stroke Management: A Modeling Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Automated assessment of breast arterial calcification: a new frontier in cardiovascular risk prediction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Deep learning software and revised 2D model to segment bone in micro-CT scans.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
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
As artificial intelligence advances in medical image analysis, its environmental impact remains largely overlooked. This study analyzes the energy demands of AI workflows for medical image segmentation using the popular Kidney Tumor Segmentation-2019 (KiTS-19) dataset. It examines how training and inference differ in energy consumption, focusing on factors that influence resource usage, such as computational complexity, memory access, and I/O operations. To address these aspects, we evaluated three variants of convolution-Standard Convolution, Depthwise Convolution, and Group Convolution-combined with optimization techniques such as Mixed Precision and Gradient Accumulation. While training is energy-intensive, the recurring nature of inference often results in significantly higher cumulative energy consumption over a model's life cycle. Depthwise Convolution with Mixed Precision achieves the lowest energy consumption during training while maintaining strong performance, making it the most energy-efficient configuration among those tested. In contrast, Group Convolution fails to achieve energy efficiency due to significant input/output overhead. These findings emphasize the need for GPU-centric strategies and energy-conscious AI practices, offering actionable guidance for designing scalable, sustainable innovation in medical image analysis.
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.