Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42213317›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026

Validation of an automated AI-based micro-CT organ segmentation workflow against expert annotations and its impact on fluorescence quantification.

Elena Rama, Sihe Yu, Sarah Schraven, Zachary Gurberg, Ekaterina Savina, Jianjun Liu, Zuzanna Anna Magnuska, Felix Gremse, Fabian Kiessling

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elena Rama *Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Sihe Yu *Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Sarah SchravenInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Zachary GurbergGremse-IT GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Ekaterina SavinaInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Jianjun LiuInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Zuzanna Anna MagnuskaInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Felix GremseGremse-IT GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Fabian KiesslingInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. fkiessling@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7341-0399

Funding

DFG (German Research Foundation) SFB 1382
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAutomated, artificial intelligence (AI)-based, organ segmentation has the potential to streamline preclinical imaging workflows, but its suitability must be evaluated not only by geometric accuracy, but also by impact on downstream quantitative analyses. We validated a commercially available AI-based organ segmentation workflow for whole-body micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) data regarding segmentation accuracy, reproducibility, processing time, and effects on fluorescence tomography (FLT) quantification. MATERIALS AND

methodsHeart, lungs, liver, and kidneys were segmented in micro-CT scans from 27 mice by three independent experts and by a commercially available automated deep learning tool applied to standard and iteratively reconstructed CT datasets. Segmentation performance was evaluated using the Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and organ volumes, while downstream effects were assessed using FLT overlay quantification across five fluorescent probes.

resultsAI-based segmentations showed organ-dependent agreement with experts, with lower DSC scores for heart and lungs reflecting systematic boundary differences. Repeated AI segmentations yielded identical results, demonstrating reproducibility while reducing segmentation time from approximately 30 min per mouse to about 5 min, with AI inference completed within seconds. While segmentation geometry and organ volumes differed from expert annotations in an organ-dependent manner, these differences showed no linear relationship with downstream FLT quantification. Iterative CT reconstruction improved the agreement of fluorescence measurements with expert-derived values.

conclusionGeometric segmentation metrics alone are insufficient to predict downstream fluorescence quantification, underscoring the need for task-based evaluation strategies in preclinical multimodal imaging. AI-based segmentation offers a reproducible and time-efficient alternative to manual annotation, enabling practical, scalable, and generalizable image analysis. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Reproducible, AI-based organ segmentation can substantially improve the efficiency and scalability of quantitative preclinical imaging workflows, supporting more robust translation of multimodal imaging biomarkers toward clinical research and future patient-focused applications. KEY POINTS: In hybrid micro-CT/FLT imaging, geometric segmentation metrics did not reliably predict downstream fluorescence quantification outcomes. AI segmentation assessment should shift from benchmark accuracy metrics toward task-based validation reflecting real downstream imaging applications across different workflows. A commercially available AI-based organ segmentation tool demonstrates fully reproducible segmentation and substantially reduced analysis time compared with expert annotations. AI applied to iteratively reconstructed CT data improves the agreement of fluorescence quantification with expert annotations compared with standard reconstruction.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceImage Processing, Computer-AssistedX-Ray MicrotomographyAnimalsHeartKidneyLiverLungMiceReproducibility of ResultsWorkflowArtificial intelligenceFluorescence imagingImage processing (computer-assisted)MiceX-ray micro-CT

Identifiers

PMID42213317
PMCPMC13221494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.