Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42722950›Full record

ReviewJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Deep Learning Segmentation of Abdominal Organs Across Ultrasound, MRI, and CT: A Scoping Review of Modality-Specific Approaches and the Emerging Role of Foundation Models and LLM-Based Agents.

Thi My Tien Nguyen, Ngoc Thang Bui

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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

2 authors.

Thi My Tien NguyenHospital for Tropical Diseases, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Ngoc Thang BuiDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Bui.Ngoc-Thang@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmentation of the liver, kidneys, and pancreas underpins volumetry, treatment planning, and disease monitoring across ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT). Deep learning has advanced through four waves-convolutional networks, transformers, segmentation foundation models, and large language model (LLM)-based agents-but how performance differs across organs and modalities has not been synthesized in a segmentation-centric, modality-stratified way. Following scoping-review reporting guidance, we searched five databases for studies published 2020-2026 and charted 72 studies by organ, modality, method family, dataset, and performance. Organ tractability was consistent (liver > kidney >  > pancreas), as was modality maturity (CT > MRI > US), with one benchmark-driven exception for the pancreas; tumor segmentation lagged organ segmentation throughout. Foundation models matched or exceeded equally box-prompted specialists on individual unseen tasks, but the most frequently cited result of this kind belongs to the Segment Anything Model (SAM) rather than to a medically adapted model, and every comparator in it received the same ground-truth-derived box. On the two benchmarks in our pool containing a fully automatic comparator, that comparator led on one and was within about one Dice point on the other, and no benchmark evaluated specialists, foundation models, and agents under a single common protocol. Performance degraded sharply on the pancreas and on ultrasound. LLM/agentic methods did not surpass specialists on overlap metrics, offering gains instead in generality, autonomy, and annotation efficiency. This modality-stratified synthesis shows where ultrasound and the pancreas remain underserved, and indicates that agentic approaches currently augment rather than replace specialist segmentation.

Indexed as

Abdominal organ segmentationDeep learningFoundation modelsLarge language modelsMedical imagingScoping review

Identifiers

PMID42722950

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.