ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Redefining MRI-Based Skull Segmentation Through AI-Driven Multimodal Integration.
Article in Journal of 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Skull segmentation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential for cranio-maxillofacial (CMF) surgery planning, yet manual approaches are time-consuming and error-prone. Computed tomography (CT) provides superior bone contrast but exposes patients to ionizing radiation, which is particularly concerning in pediatric care. This study presents an AI-based workflow that enables skull segmentation directly from routine MRI. Using 186 paired CT-MRI datasets, CT-based segmentations were transferred to MRI via multimodal registration to train dedicated deep learning models. Performance was evaluated against manually segmented CT ground truth using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Mean Surface Distance (MSD), and Hausdorff Distance (HD). AI achieved higher performance on CT (DSC 0.981) than MRI (DSC 0.864), with MSD and HD also favoring CT. Despite lower absolute accuracy on MRI, the approach substantially improved segmentation quality compared with manual MRI methods, particularly in clinically relevant regions. This automated method enables accurate skull modeling from standard MRI without radiation exposure or specialized sequences. While CT remains more precise, the presented framework enhances MRI utility in surgical planning, reduces manual workload, and supports safer, patient-specific treatment, especially for pediatric and trauma cases.
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.