ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Segmentation method comparison for baseline [
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFollicular lymphoma (FL) is the second most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Currently, [
methodsBaseline PET-CT data of 25 second-line FL patients from the HOVON110 trial and 12 first-line FL patients from the PETAL trial were selected. Two observers applied 13 different semi-automatic methods, of which six used a single threshold and seven combined thresholds (multi-threshold). Methods include, SUV threshold methods, an AI-based method, majority vote and lesion-based selection methods. The segmentation process comprises four steps: step 1 and 2 involved generating a preselection, while step 3 and 4 applied an automatic method followed by manual adjustments. To assess segmentation quality, both observers gave a score (1-3) ranging from undersegmentation to oversegmentation. For interobserver variability, the difference in total metabolic tumor volume between observers was determined. The ease-of-use was assessed based on manually added and removed volume in step 4.
resultsA total of 962 segmentations were made by two observers. Differences in results between the methods were limited across all characteristics, indicating an overall satisfactory performance of all methods. The multi-threshold method scored better for segmentation quality in comparison to single-threshold methods, indicating less under- or oversegmentation. The single-threshold method SUV4.0 demonstrated lower median (0.3 mL) and inter quartile range (2.0 mL) concerning interobserver variability in comparison to lesion-based methods.
conclusionAmong the single threshold methods, SUV4.0 is preferred regarding ease-of-use, observer variability and segmentation quality. While the multi-threshold lesion-based methods showed the a higher segmentation quality, SUV4.0 has the benefit of easy implementation, wide availability and is in-line with the currently set benchmark for lymphoma PET analysis. We identified SUV4.0 and a lesion-based method as the candidate methods preferred for further clinical performance evaluation.
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.