ArticlePloS one2026
Controlled comparative study of YOLOv8-Pose, YOLOv11-Pose, and Detectron2 for vertebrae detection and keypoint estimation.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate vertebrae detection with precise keypoint localization is essential for medical image analysis and clinical applications, such as spinal alignment assessment. This study presents a controlled, task-driven comparison of four pose-based deep learning models for vertebrae detection and keypoint estimation: YOLOv8n-Pose, YOLOv11n-Pose, and Detectron2 (Keypoint R-CNN) with ResNet-50 and ResNet-101 backbones. A single-class vertebrae dataset with bounding box annotations and four anatomically meaningful keypoints per vertebra was evaluated under consistent training settings. Performance was assessed in terms of keypoint localization accuracy, detection precision, inference speed, and vertebrae-specific prediction behavior, including detection completeness and duplicate detections, which are critical for clinical usability. Results show that YOLOv11n-Pose provides the best balance between keypoint accuracy and inference efficiency, while YOLOv8n-Pose achieves the fastest inference with competitive performance. Detectron2-based models exhibit lower keypoint accuracy, slower inference, and frequent duplicate predictions that obscure correct anatomical landmarks. Additional experiments indicate that larger YOLO variants (particularly YOLOv8l-Pose) improve accuracy, albeit at increased computational cost. Overall, the results demonstrate that model capacity or architectural recency alone does not guarantee superior performance in vertebrae keypoint detection, highlighting the importance of anatomy-aware model selection for spine imaging 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.