ArticleScientific reports2025
Adaptive composite loss for volumetric whole heart segmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate segmentation in medical imaging requires loss functions that capture both regional overlap and boundary alignment. This study evaluates composite losses combining binary cross-entropy (BCE) and a boundary-based term under fixed and adaptive weighting schemes, using U-Net and SwinUNETR on the MM-WHS dataset. For U-Net, a small boundary contribution with adaptive weighting yielded the best results: Standard SoftAdapt (90/10 BCE + BoundaryDoU) achieved the highest Dice score ([Formula: see text]), surpassing both the baseline ([Formula: see text]) and fixed ratios. In contrast, SwinUNETR achieved its strongest performance with a fixed 70% BCE + 10% boundary ratio (0.919 ± 0.02). The result showed that combining a boundary-based loss term helps improve the segmentation accuracy. However, the performance gain is dependent on the architecture of the segmentation model; convolution-based U-Net benefited from the adaptive loss weighting scheme, whereas Transformer-based SwinUNETR without strong inductive bias did not benefit from increased influence of the boundary loss term.
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.