ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Establishment of AI-assisted diagnosis of the infraorbital posterior ethmoid cells based on deep learning.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo construct an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted model for identifying the infraorbital posterior ethmoid cells (IPECs) based on deep learning using sagittal CT images.
methodsSagittal CT images of 277 samples with and 142 samples without IPECs were retrospectively collected. An experienced radiologist engaged in the relevant aspects picked a sagittal CT image that best showed IPECs. The images were randomly assigned to the training and test sets, with 541 sides in the training set and 97 sides in the test set. The training set was used to perform a five-fold cross-validation, and the results of each fold were used to predict the test set. The model was built using nnUNet, and its performance was evaluated using Dice and standard classification metrics.
resultsThe model achieved a Dice coefficient of 0.900 in the training set and 0.891 in the additional set. Precision was 0.965 for the training set and 1.000 for the additional set, while sensitivity was 0.981 and 0.967, respectively. A comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between manual outlining by a less-experienced radiologist and AI-assisted outlining showed a significant improvement in detection efficiency (P < 0.05). The AI model aided correctly in identifying and outlining all IPECs, including 12 sides that the radiologist should improve portraying.
conclusionAI models can help radiologists identify the IPECs, which can further prompt relevant clinical interventions.
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.