ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of segmentation performance of cnns, vision transformers, and hybrid networks for paranasal sinuses with sinusitis on CT images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of artificial intelligence in dental imaging: from dataset design to clinical translation.Oral radiology · 2026Review
- Review
- Multi-dimensional deep learning-based segmentation and volumetric assessment of sphenoid sinus fluid on postmortem CT in drowning cases.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Explainable hybrid CNN-transformer with self-supervised learning for structural analysis of paranasal sinus CT.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate segmentation of the paranasal sinuses, including the frontal sinus (FS), ethmoid sinus (ES), sphenoid sinus (SS), and maxillary sinus (MS), plays an important role in supporting image-guided surgery (IGS) for sinusitis, facilitating safer intraoperative navigation by identifying anatomical variations and delineating surgical landmarks on CT imaging. To the best of our knowledge, no comparative studies of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), vision transformers (ViTs), and hybrid networks for segmenting each paranasal sinus in patients with sinusitis have been conducted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the segmentation performance of CNNs, ViTs, and hybrid networks for individual paranasal sinuses with varying degrees of anatomical complexity and morphological and textural variations caused by sinusitis on CT images. The performance of CNNs, ViTs, and hybrid networks was compared using Jaccard Index (JI), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), precision (PR), recall (RC), and 95% Hausdorff Distance (HD95) for segmentation accuracy metrics and the number of parameters (Params) and inference time (IT) for computational efficiency. The Swin UNETR hybrid network outperformed the other networks, achieving the highest segmentation scores, with a JI of 0.719, a DSC of 0.830, a PR of 0.935, and a RC of 0.758, and the lowest HD95 value of 10.529 with the smallest number of the model architectural parameter, with 15.705 M Params. Also, CoTr, another hybrid network, demonstrated superior segmentation performance compared to CNNs and ViTs, and achieved the fastest inference time with 0.149 IT. Compared with CNNs and ViTs, hybrid networks significantly reduced false positives and enabled more precise boundary delineation, effectively capturing anatomical relationships among the sinuses and surrounding structures. This resulted in the lowest segmentation errors near critical surgical landmarks. In conclusion, hybrid networks may provide a more balanced trade-off between segmentation accuracy and computational efficiency, with potential applicability in clinical decision support systems for sinusitis.
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.