Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42832161›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026

Segmenting scaffolds with ingrown bone in micro-CT images: considerations of evaluation metrics and loss functions.

Sohaila Aboutaleb, Nellie Haug, Prachi Keni-McCray, Arthur R C McCray, Heidi Phillips, Stephanie Sharping, David Cohen, Julián Norato, Amy Wagoner Johnson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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.

Sohaila AboutalebMechanical Science and Engineering, Grainger College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Nellie HaugCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Prachi Keni-McCrayCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Arthur R C McCrayDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Heidi PhillipsDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61802, USA.
Stephanie SharpingDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61802, USA.
David CohenSchool of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Julián NoratoSchool of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Amy Wagoner JohnsonMechanical Science and Engineering, Grainger College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA. ajwj@illinois.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8396-3803

Funding

National Science Foundation CMMI-1727591
6 · The paper itself

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

AugmentationBone regenerationEvaluation metricsLoss functionsMicro-computed tomographySemantic segmentationU-Net

Identifiers

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.