ArticleJTCVS open2026
Feasibility of semantic segmentation of anatomical structures during minimally invasive lobectomy using a transformer-based deep learning architecture.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: During anatomic lung resection, intraoperative guidance identifying anatomic structures at risk of injury may improve surgical safety and serve as an educational tool. To enhance clinical practices, we aim to develop and evaluate the accuracy of semantic segmentation using a deep learning model capable of recognizing such key anatomic structures during right upper lobectomies. Methods: We collected recordings of 95 robotic-assisted right upper lobectomy cases for lung malignancy. The videos were divided into 2 sections: (1) subcarinal lymph node dissection (section 1) and (2) the subsequent phase (section 2). We labeled the following: bronchus, instruments, lung parenchyma, lymph node, pulmonary artery/vein, and vagus/phrenic nerve. Using these data, we trained and tested deep learning architectures for semantic segmentation and evaluated their performances using a Dice Similarity Coefficient score. Results: A total of 2901 annotated frames were divided among a training set (2355 frames), a hold-out testing set (546 frames), and a final testing set from an external dataset (600 frames). By using SegFormer as an encoder in a U-Net architecture, instruments and lung parenchyma were segmented with a Dice of 0.90 and 0.91 in section 1 and 0.91 and 0.93 in section 2, respectively. The model could not achieve high accuracy for bronchus and lymph node (Dice: ∼0.50), and vagus nerve (Dice: 0.25) in section 1. In section 2, the model has reasonably high segmentation accuracy for the bronchus (Dice: 0.57), pulmonary artery/vein (Dice: 0.78), and phrenic nerve (Dice: 0.66). Conclusions: We demonstrated the feasibility of semantic segmentation during right upper lobectomies using deep learning.
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.