ArticleScientific reports2026
Clinical application of AI for lung lobe segmentation and functional quantification with SPECT/CT: open-source versus custom models.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung lobe quantification with SPECT/CT is essential for treatment planning but remains clinically limited by inadequate tools. Although AI-based approaches show promise, their clinical validation is limited. This study compares the clinical accuracy of SPECT/CT-based lobar quantification using open-source and in-house developed segmentation models. We curated a dataset of 200 diverse CT and SPECT scans with expert lobar annotations, graded by segmentation difficulty (Easy, Moderate, Hard). We trained a local AI model on these data and included a novel anatomy-aware softmax modification at inference to improve robustness in missing-lobe cases. Lobar function error was computed as the difference between model- and ground truth-derived function after automated SPECT/CT coregistration. Results were compared across the local model, its anatomy-aware variant, three open-source models, and a commercial tool. Across 40 test cases (10 Easy, 10 Moderate, 20 Hard), no systematic bias was found in lobar function error across models. However, error standard-deviation increased significantly with case complexity for open-source models (0.57 to 5.79%, p < 0.005), particularly in missing-lobe cases (1.61 vs. 7.57%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the local model and commercial tool maintained high accuracy across difficulty (0.51 to 1.4%, p > 0.24). The anatomy-aware softmax modification eliminated false-positive lobe predictions, further improving quantification accuracy. AI-based tools can streamline routine lobar quantification with minimal but necessary physician oversight. SPECT/CT lobar quantification benefited from improved robustness through training with representative data and anatomy-awareness. While publicly available models struggled with complex cases, they produced clinically acceptable results in typical anatomy and mild diseases.
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.