ArticleScientific reports2026
Enhancing automatic landmark localization in X-ray images using combined segmentation and regression models: application to lower limb alignment assessment.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual landmark detection in lower limb medical imaging is time-consuming and error-prone. Recently, authors have proposed automatic landmark detection methods based on image segmentation, coordinate regression, or a combination of both to aid clinicians. While the latter approach shows promising results, detailed optimization of its design choices, including the integration strategy and hyperparameter tuning, remains unexplored. This study investigates the optimal approach to combining image segmentation and coordinate regression, focusing on selecting suitable network architectures and optimizing their configurations. We contrasted two methods for training the network: end-to-end training and cascading the subnetworks, and assessed the optimal architecture for each strategy. For landmark segmentation, we compared U-Net and Swin-UNETR models, and for coordinate regression, we assessed VGG-16, ResNet-50, and Swin-B. Performance was evaluated in detecting eight landmarks in each leg of a complete lower-limb X-ray and in examining their influence on the clinical task of measuring lower-limb malalignment. Swin-UNETR slightly outperformed U-Net, with a lower Euclidean distance error (1.74 mm [0.98 mm] versus 1.75 mm [1.06 mm]) and significantly fewer false positives (160 vs. 502). For coordinate regression, VGG-16 in the end-to-end configuration achieved the highest accuracy (2.44 mm [2.12 mm]) and proved optimal for lower limb alignment assessment, with 97.88% of estimations falling within [Formula: see text] of the hip-knee-ankle angle ground truth. Combining Swin-UNETR with VGG-16 within an end-to-end framework yields the most accurate and robust performance for automated lower-limb landmark detection and alignment assessment.
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.