ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2026
Dendritic U-Net for robust vascular wall segmentation in ultrasound imaging.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe proposed a method that combines the deep learning model U-Net with a dendritic neuron model (DNM) and demonstrated its effectiveness for more robust extraction of vascular wall boundaries through analysis using ultrasound simulations and in vivo carotid artery data.
methodsDendritic U-Net (DU-Net) is a model that replaces the output layer of U-Net with a DNM. Its accuracy was compared to U-Net using cross-validation on a dataset generated by ultrasound simulation. The applicability of the model trained on the simulation dataset to clinical data was also verified using an in vivo dataset of a healthy human carotid artery. The noise robustness of the results was evaluated using the mean absolute difference (MAD) within the scanline and frame of the extracted vessel wall boundaries from the segmentation map.
resultsCross-validation using the simulation data showed that DU-Net achieved higher accuracy than U-Net in terms of precision (93.64%), Dice (96.38%), and Intersection over Union (93.01%). Furthermore, evaluation of the MAD of the extracted vessel wall boundaries from the in vivo data demonstrated that DU-Net produced smoother boundaries than U-Net.
conclusionIncorporating DNM into U-Net suppresses the impact of noise on vessel wall boundary extraction, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed DU-Net method for vessel wall boundary extraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42667503What 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.