ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
Segmenting scaffolds with ingrown bone in micro-CT images: considerations of evaluation metrics and loss functions.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
U-Net models are useful for biomedical image segmentation because they do not require large training sets. Here, we trained three U-Net models, each with a different loss function, to segment micro-CT image patches of scaffolds with ingrown bone to quantify bone growth fraction. Segmentation performance is typically reported using metrics like Accuracy, DSC, Precision, and Recall. However, these metrics did not reflect performance relative to the application's key output measure. We therefore aimed to establish an application-specific parameter, ΔBGF: the difference in bone growth fraction (BGF) between predicted output (PO) and ground truth (GT). Bland-Altman analysis showed small systematic bias (< 1.5 percentage points), supporting PO-GT agreement. Accuracy was the metric most strongly correlated to |ΔBGF| in nearly all comparisons (Steiger test), and this relationship was stable under bootstrap resampling. The models were robust to changes in orientation, resolution, and contrast, supporting broader generalizability. The cross-entropy loss model generated the most reliable segmentation. PO-GT error was small relative to meaningful biological differences, suggesting it is unlikely to affect future treatment comparisons. Overall, standard metrics can be misleading, while ΔBGF provides a reliable, application-specific measure of performance for this still developing use of U-Net in quantifying bone regeneration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42832161What 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.