ReviewFrontiers in radiology2026
Systematic review of pituitary gland and pituitary adenoma automatic segmentation techniques in magnetic resonance imaging.
Review in Frontiers in radiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate segmentation of both the pituitary gland and adenomas from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential for diagnosis and treatment of pituitary adenomas. This systematic review evaluates automatic segmentation methods for improving the accuracy and efficiency of MRI-based segmentation of pituitary adenomas and the gland itself. We analysed 34 studies that employed automatic and semi-automatic segmentation methods out of 353 reviewed studies. We extracted and synthesized data on segmentation techniques and performance metrics (such as Dice overlap scores). The majority of reviewed studies utilized deep learning approaches, with U-Net-based models being the most prevalent. Automatic methods yielded Dice scores of 0%-89% for pituitary gland and 4%-96% for adenoma segmentation. Semi-automatic methods reported 80%-92% for pituitary gland and 75%-88% for adenoma segmentation. Most studies did not report important metrics such as MR field strength, age and adenoma size (macro/micro/giant) or even adenoma type and human subject numbers. Automated segmentation techniques such as U-Net-based models show promise, especially for adenoma segmentation, but further improvements are needed to achieve consistently good performance in small structures like the normal pituitary gland. Future progress will require methodological innovation and larger, more diverse datasets to enhance clinical applicability.
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.