ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
A study of cross-dataset generalization on liver vessel segmentation improved by a topological loss.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our research addresses the critical task of localizing liver vascularity for medical applications such as surgical planning and intraoperative navigation. We conduct a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of contemporary segmentation architectures for liver vessel segmentation, comparing UNet-based, mask-based, and foundational models. Our analysis emphasizes cross-dataset generalization by assessing model performance on multiple datasets. Notably, we achieve strong generalization by integrating region-based and topologically based Dice loss functions. This approach substantially improves cross-domain generalization, yielding clDice scores of 0.7132 on the IRCAD dataset and 0.6704 on the MSD dataset, even when these datasets were not included in the training set. Additionally, training with a mixed dataset further increases the MSD Dice score to 0.7472.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479323What 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.