ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Fully automated diaphragm segmentation on routine 2D-cine and 3D thoracic MRI: multireader validation.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe diaphragm is central to respiratory mechanics and may be impaired in various diseases. Parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment is limited by time-consuming manual segmentation. We developed and validated fully automated diaphragm segmentation on two-dimensional (2D)-cine and three-dimensional (3D) thoracic MRI. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-center study, eligible adults without known diaphragmatic disorders underwent 2D-cine MRI, 3D MRI, or both. Two U-Net models (2D/3D) were trained using expert manual contours as ground truth. Performance was evaluated with normalized surface Dice (NSD) with 3-voxel tolerance and average surface distance (ASSD). In the main cohort, five blinded radiologists rated segmentation usability and image quality. An additional separate pathology cohort was assessed by two blinded readers using the same scale.
resultsOverall, 59 individuals contributed 70 MRI acquisitions: 29 women, 30 men; aged 49.3 ± 18.8 years (mean ± standard deviation). Inference required 5 s (2D) and 30 s (3D) versus 10 min and 4.5 h for manual annotation. Segmentation accuracy was high: NSD 0.95 ± 0.08 (2D) and 0.92 ± 0.06 (3D), with ASSD 1.97 ± 2.29 mm (2D) and 1.88 ± 1.97 mm (3D). In the main cohort, segmentations were rated clinically usable in 87.5% (2D) and 100% (3D). Mean image-quality scores were 4.0/5 (2D) and 4.2/5 (3D) and correlated with segmentation quality. In the pathology cohort (n = 5), segmentation usability for 2D images was 75% for reader 1 and 70% for reader 2 for 2D images and 80% for both readers for 3D volumes.
conclusionAutomated diaphragm segmentation on 2D-cine and 3D MRI is feasible, accurate, and time-efficient, supporting scalable, standardized diaphragm analysis as a basis for deriving diaphragm biomarkers. KEY POINTS: Question Can fully automated diaphragm segmentation make routine 2D-cine and 3D thoracic MRI analysis clinically feasible by replacing time-consuming manual delineation? Findings Automated segmentation achieved normalized surface Dice above 0.9, radiologist acceptability in 87.5-100% of cases, and inference times below 30 s Relevance statement Automated diaphragm segmentation on routine 2D-cine and 3D static MRI yields accurate, radiologist-acceptable segmentations with normalized surface Dice exceeding 0.9 and mean surface deviations below 2 mm. This approach may support standardized diaphragm assessment for objective quantification in thoracic and neuromuscular imaging pending larger multicenter validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886423What 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.