ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Training-only ultrasound-specific augmentation for ovarian tumor segmentation across B-mode and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ovarian tumor segmentation models trained on conventional ultrasound may be sensitive to contrast-enhanced ultrasound appearance. We evaluated whether training-only combined ultrasound-specific augmentation could improve robustness without adding inference-time complexity. Methods: We used MMOTU image-mask pairs, including 820 development B-mode ultrasound images, 382 internal two-dimensional ultrasound images, and 170 contrast-enhanced ultrasound images as a CEUS domain-shift stress test. A lightweight Residual U-Net was compared with the same backbone trained using photometric, blur, and low-amplitude noise augmentation. Performance was evaluated using overlap, boundary, and pixel-calibration metrics. Paired CEUS differences were tested with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals, and case-level failure rates were reported. Results: The combined augmentation preserved internal performance, with Dice of 0.745 (0.196) compared with 0.750 (0.191) for Residual U-Net. On contrast-enhanced ultrasound, it improved Dice from 0.468 (0.190) to 0.476 (0.192), intersection over union from 0.326 (0.167) to 0.334 (0.171), Boundary F1 from 0.037 (0.035) to 0.041 (0.032), and pixel expected calibration error from 0.314 (0.143) to 0.297 (0.138). The mean paired CEUS Dice improvement was 0.008 (95% CI -0.0002 to 0.0167); 62.9% of cases improved and 37.1% worsened. However, the proportion of CEUS cases with Dice below 0.5 decreased from 55.9 to 51.8%, indicating that CEUS segmentation remained suboptimal. Conclusion: Training-only combined ultrasound-specific augmentation yielded a small but directionally favorable CEUS improvement without added inference-time complexity. These findings support training-distribution design as a practical low-cost strategy for modality-shift robustness and warrant further patient-level and multi-center validation.
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.