Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42573685›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Fully Automated Segmentation of Anatomical Subregions of the Thoracolumbar Spine on Computed Tomography.

Raffaele Da Mutten, Sven Theiler, Massimo Bottini, Daniel de Wilde, Olivier Zanier, Nicolai Maldaner, Stefanos Voglis, Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Adrian Elmi-Terander, Tristan P C van Doormaal and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics 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.

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

15 authors.

Raffaele Da MuttenMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sven TheilerMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Massimo BottiniMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel de WildeMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Olivier ZanierMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nicolai MaldanerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stefanos VoglisDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Victor Gabriel El-HajjDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Adrian Elmi-TeranderDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tristan P C van DoormaalMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Menno R GermansDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
David BellutDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Luca RegliMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Carlo SerraMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Victor E StaartjesMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. victoregon.staartjes@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1039-2098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmentations of the vertebral column that include anatomical subregions can be used for patient education, pedicle screw planning, or radiomic feature extraction for spinal surgery. Deep learning has proven successful in tackling medical image segmentation; therefore, we aim to train a multiclass vertebral subregion segmentation model with different model architectures. The corpus, lamina, pedicle, superior and inferior articular process, transverse process, and spinous process of 118 thoracolumbar spine CTs were manually segmented. Then, a standard nnU-Net, a nnU-Net with residual encoder (ResEnc nnU-Net), and a shifted window U-Net transformer (SwinUNETR) were trained for semantic segmentation. All models were trained in fivefold cross-validation. A geometric approach was also used for comparison. External validation was performed on a different dataset. On an external validation dataset, the standard nnU-Net achieved the highest overlap performance across all seven vertebral subregions, with Dice scores of 0.993 ± 0.012 for the vertebral body corpus, 0.989 ± 0.023 for the pedicles, 0.991 ± 0.021 for the lamina, 0.992 ± 0.017 for the spinous process, 0.989 ± 0.025 for the transverse process, 0.985 ± 0.034 for the superior articular process, and 0.980 ± 0.046 for the inferior articular process. The Residual-Encoder nnU-Net achieved comparable but slightly lower performance (Dice 0.938-0.979 across subregions), while SwinUNETR showed a more pronounced decline (Dice 0.824-0.918), particularly in boundary-level agreement. The geometric approach of Blomenkamp et al. performed markedly worse than all deep learning-based methods, with Dice scores ranging from 0.382 for the lamina to 0.889 for the jointly segmented corpus and pedicle region.

Indexed as

NeurosurgeryPedicleSemantic segmentationSpineSubregionsVertebral

Identifiers

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.