ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Performance enhancement method by using the probabilistic estimation for kidney tumor segmentation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Ensemble methods can enhance segmentation performance, but their effectiveness depends on the integration strategy. We investigated whether the STAPLE algorithm's probabilistic framework could effectively leverage model diversity from different loss functions to improve kidney tumor segmentation accuracy compared to individual models and conventional soft voting. Methods: We utilized CT scans from 210 patients in the KiTS19 dataset with expert-annotated kidney and tumor structures. Five model variants were developed using the nnU-Net framework: two 2D U-Nets and three 3D U-Nets, each trained with different hybrid loss functions ( Results: In KiTS19 tumor segmentation, individual model DSCs ranged from 0.64 ± 0.27 (2D models) to 0.70 ± 0.24 (3D models). Majority voting achieved DSC of 0.70 ± 0.27 and soft voting achieved 0.71 ± 0.26, while STAPLE reached 0.74 ± 0.23 (adjusted p<0.05). JI improved from 0.53-0.59 (individual models) to 0.63 ± 0.24 (STAPLE). HD95 decreased to 11.81 ± 13.43 with STAPLE. Precision and recall reached 0.88 ± 0.20 and 0.72 ± 0.24, respectively. In LiTS17 liver tumor segmentation, STAPLE similarly outperformed soft voting (DSC: 0.76 ± 0.10 vs. 0.71 ± 0.18, adjusted p<0.05). Conclusions: The STAPLE algorithm achieved superior performance in primary segmentation metrics compared to individual models, majority voting, and soft voting (STAPLE > soft voting > majority voting), demonstrating the benefits of probabilistic ensemble methods for kidney tumor segmentation. Stratified analysis revealed that STAPLE's advantage was most pronounced for medium-sized tumors, where performance variability was reduced by 45%. The approach showed consistent effectiveness in liver tumor segmentation, suggesting potential for broader clinical applications.
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.