ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Automatic Vertebral Body Segmentation Performance in Lateral Thoracic Spine X-Rays: A Comparative Analysis Based on Implant Presence and Subtype.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate vertebral body segmentation in spine radiographs is essential for quantitative analysis, but metallic implants introduce artifacts that degrade model performance. We evaluated the effects of implant presence and material subtypes on automatic segmentation using real-world thoracic spine lateral X-rays. SOLOv2 and Mask R-CNN were evaluated on radiographs from 264 patients. To analyze the localized impact of surgical hardware, a synchronized cohort of 3637 vertebral bodies correctly delineated by both models was analyzed, comparing non-implanted (n = 3467) and implanted (n = 170) instances. The implanted group was stratified into four subtypes: Bone Cement, Screw, Screw + Cement, and Screw + Etc. Performance was quantified via precision, sensitivity, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD95), and average symmetric surface distance (ASSD), and validated using the Mann-Whitney U test (α = 0.010). Implant presence caused significant performance degradation across all metrics (p < 0.001). The Screw + Etc subgroup showed the most profound degradation versus baseline (DSC: 0.826 vs. 0.930, p < 0.001). The Screw subgroup exhibited significant declines in volumetric overlap and boundary distances (p < 0.010). The Bone Cement subgroup showed a broad multidimensional decline, including a severe drop in sensitivity (p < 0.001), while the Screw + Cement subgroup demonstrated significant distance-based errors (p = 0.005). Implant presence significantly reduces thoracic spine segmentation performance, varying distinctly by subtype. Developers must account for these subtype-specific artifacts to ensure clinical validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42831999What 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.