ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Organ Segmentation with Machine Learning Models.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate segmentation of abdominal organs in Computed Tomography (CT) underpins radiotherapy planning, surgical planning, and disease monitoring. Existing benchmarks rank architectures by a single aggregate Dice score, without per-organ statistical testing or boundary-sensitive metrics, even though models are chosen organ by organ for clinical use. We benchmark ten architectures spanning convolutional, attention-based, transformer, and state-space (Mamba) families on the AMOS CT dataset under one identical nnU-Net-style pipeline; we report per-organ Dice, 95-percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95), and Normalised Surface Dice, with pairwise significance tested on an independent external dataset (TotalSegmentator). A competitive cluster of convolutional and Mamba models leads; rankings are stable on large organs but reshuffle by 10-13% on the small, geometrically complex ones, and boundary fidelity separates the models into tiers that the Dice ranking hides. This ordering largely holds on the external set (Spearman ρ=0.84). Selecting a model on aggregate Dice alone is therefore unsafe for organ-specific clinical tasks: per-organ overlap and boundary metrics should be the primary acceptance criteria for selecting a model before clinical deployment.
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.