Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42270681›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Clinical application of AI for lung lobe segmentation and functional quantification with SPECT/CT: open-source versus custom models.

Elaheh Amini, Maria Goemans, Daniel Kyrollos, Oscar Osorio Cruz, Jose Aquino, Farzad Abbaspour, Karine Provost, Ran Klein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

8 authors.

Elaheh AminiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada. eamini@ohri.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2259-2981
Maria GoemansDepartment of Cell and Systems Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7814-4025
Daniel KyrollosDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Oscar Osorio CruzFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jose AquinoFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Farzad AbbaspourFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Karine ProvostDepartment of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Ran KleinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4357-3779

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2020-04741
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLungSingle Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed TomographyHumansTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTomography, X-Ray ComputedAI-based image segmentationAI clinical integrationLung lobe quantificationSPECT/CT quantification

Identifiers

PMID42270681
PMCPMC13503763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.