Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42812620›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of radiology2026

Comparing the reliability of three software programmes for manual and (semi-)automatic volumetry in healthy livers.

Ariadne L van der Velden, Robrecht R M M Knapen, Sinéad James, Hossein Rahmani, Ralph Brecheisen, Sander M J van Kuijk, Joachim E Wildberger, Ronald M van Dam, Christiaan van der Leij

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of radiology, 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

9 authors.

Ariadne L van der VeldenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht 6229 HX, Limburg, Netherlands.
Robrecht R M M KnapenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht 6229 HX, Limburg, Netherlands.
Sinéad JamesGROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht 6229 ER, Limburg, Netherlands.
Hossein RahmaniDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht 6229 HX, Limburg, Netherlands.
Ralph BrecheisenDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht 6229 HX, Limburg, Netherlands.
Sander M J van KuijkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht 6229 HX, Limburg, Netherlands.
Joachim E WildbergerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht 6229 HX, Limburg, Netherlands.
Ronald M van DamGROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht 6229 ER, Limburg, Netherlands.
Christiaan van der LeijDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht 6229 HX, Limburg, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple software programs are available for manual or (semi-)automated liver segmentation. Although manual segmentation has traditionally been the standard, it is time-intensive and susceptible to inter-observer variability. Conversely, (semi-)automated approaches have been shown to reduce segmentation time, but the availability and use of different software tools can introduce variability in liver volumetry outcomes.

aimTo evaluate the reliability of three segmentation software programs (Synapse 3D (Fujifilm), OsiriX

methodsPatients (≥ 18 years) with abdominal computed tomography images without liver pathology were included. Total liver volume (TLV) and segment II/III volume - a surrogate for the future liver remnant (FLR) - were measured. Two blinded independent researchers performed volumetric assessments. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for interobserver variability for the first 30 scans between both researchers. This was also performed for intra-observer variability between the software programs in 200 randomly selected patients (52.5% male; mean age: 63.5 years).

resultsMean TLV's reported by Synapse 3D, Syngo.via and OsiriX

conclusionAlthough absolute volumes varied slightly, the standardized FLR remained comparable across the software programs, indicating that all three are suitable for reliable computed tomography liver volumetry.

Indexed as

Imaging-based volumetryLiver malignancyLiver volumetry softwareManual segmentation(Semi)automated segmentation

Identifiers

PMID42812620
PMCPMC13621297

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.