Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41507872›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2026

Reducing manual workload in CT and MRI annotation with the Segment Anything Model 2.

Leo Misera, Sven Nebelung, Zunamys I Carrero, Keno Bressem, Marta Ligero, Jens-Peter Kühn, Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann, Daniel Truhn, Jakob Nikolas Kather

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Leo MiseraInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Sven NebelungDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Zunamys I CarreroElse Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Keno BressemDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine and Health, TUM University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Marta LigeroElse Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Jens-Peter KühnInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Ralf-Thorsten HoffmannInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Daniel TruhnDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Jakob Nikolas KatherElse Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany. kather.jn@tu-dresden.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVolumetric segmentation in CT and MRI is valuable for artificial intelligence workflows in radiology, yet creating the large, precisely annotated datasets required for training segmentation models remains laborious.

methodsHere, we tested in simulation whether the foundation model “Segment Anything Model 2” (SAM 2) can reduce expert annotation workload. In our workflow, annotators provide a single box at the object’s center, and SAM 2 automatically segments the object across slices; annotators then review and correct the masks as needed. Workload reduction was defined as the proportion of SAM 2’s predicted segmentation masks that were accepted without modification. Downstream segmentation models were then trained on the SAM 2-assisted masks and compared with reference models trained on ground truth masks.

resultsFor femoral bone segmentation in MRI and liver tumor segmentation in CT, 36,614 sagittal and 16,311 axial slices were annotated, with 30% and 53% of SAM 2-generated masks accepted as is, respectively, indicating workload reduction. Crucially, segmentation models trained on SAM 2-assisted masks performed comparably to reference models, with a median dice similarity coefficient of 98.5% compared with 98.7% for femoral bone segmentation, and 77.3% compared with 77.0% for liver tumor segmentation.

conclusionUsing SAM 2 could thus expedite 3D medical imaging dataset annotation and segmentation model development for both research and clinical applications.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedFemurHumansWorkloadCTDeep learningImage annotationMRIRadiologySegment anything modelSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID41507872
PMCPMC12849165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.