ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Comparison of deep learning models for real-time neural tissue segmentation in spinal endoscopy.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking deep learning pipelines for surgical instrument segmentation in endoscopic spine surgery: cross-dataset evaluation under deployment-realistic conditions.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS), accurately identifying neural structures, mainly the spinal nerve roots, dural sac, and the cauda equina, is crucial for preventing dural tears and achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Contrary to the growing popularity of deep learning in biomedical image processing, its application to BESS has not yet been well established. We propose a two-stage framework for real-time neural tissue segmentation from spinal endoscopy video, and compare various types of deep learning architectures.
methods6410 intraoperative images from 28 patients were collected and split at the patient level into 4661 and 1749 images for training and testing, respectively. For each set, 2307 and 635 images contained neural tissue. First, a lightweight image classifier that determines the presence of neural tissue was developed. Then, six variants of the U-Net family and SegFormers for neural tissue segmentation were trained. Ground truth segmentation masks were generated by a spine specialist with more than four years of experience. AUROC and DSC on the test set were the primary outcome measures for the classification and segmentation models, respectively, and computational burden was also measured, followed by qualitative assessment of the output predictions.
resultsResNet-18 achieved the highest test AUROC of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.91–0.93), running at a mean inference time of 1.2 ms per image, outperforming MobilenetV3-Large in all performance metrics (p < 0.001) and computational efficiency. AR2U-Net exhibited the highest test DSC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78–0.81), IoU of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.68–0.72), and AUPRC of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.87–0.89). The test performance metrics of other U-Net variants did not differ significantly, except for AUPRC (p < 0.001), while those of SegFormer-B0 and SegFormer-B1 were significantly inferior (p < 0.001). U-Net variants were generally operable at a reasonable speed (25–40 FPS), in which U-Net and AU-Net exhibited inference times of less than 30 ms.
conclusionsWe have developed and compared deep learning models for neural tissue segmentation in spinal endoscopy and explored their potential for clinical application to real-time surgical video streams. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.