ArticleDiscover oncology2026
Pancreatic multi structure segmentation on CT using transformer and deep learning approaches.
Article in Discover 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo comprehensively evaluate and compare the performance of six advanced deep learning architectures for automatic segmentation of pancreatic tumors and adjacent anatomical structures in contrast-enhanced CT images. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe multi-center study included 1968 CT scans that were acquired from 6 different medical institutions and thus covered a large range of imaging hardware and acquisition protocols. Six anatomical structures - pancreatic tumour, parenchyma, duct, common bile duct, venous system, and arterial system were manually segmented by experienced radiologists. Intensity normalization, spatial resampling and data augmentation were used as pre-processing steps. The evaluated architectures were U-Net, nnU-Net, ATTENTION-BASED RESIDUAL U-Net, DEEPLABV3+, SEGNET and SWIN-UNET. Each network was trained using a Dice loss together with cross-entropy and the Adam optimizer with a cosine learning rate scheduler. Internal and external validation was performed on an entirely independent external cohort (n = 536) using the following measures: Dice coefficient, Jaccard Index, Precision, Recall and 95th percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare the two groups; Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used.
resultsSwin-Unet outperformed all other models in terms of volumetric and boundary metrics: Dice scores were obtained ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 and HD95 as low as 2.9 mm. nnU-Net achieved the second place and proved to be highly generalizable, although slightly lower accuracy was obtained for small/material tortuous structures. Transformer and attention-enhanced models significantly outperformed classical CNNs, especially in segmenting ducts and vascular anatomy. We demonstrated that the robust generalisation of Swin-Unet was validated externally with minimal degradation in performance when generalized to different institutions. Statistical results showed that Swin-Unet is significantly superior (p < 0.001) in all considered structures.
conclusionsAmong the six contemporary deep learning architectures compared in this large multi-center CT study with external validation, Swin-Unet achieved the highest segmentation accuracy and generalization, particularly for vascular structures and pancreatic parenchyma, while performance on thin and low-contrast ductal structures remains an area for further improvement.
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.