Evidence mapPaperPMID 36008356Full record

ArticleMedical physics2023

Automated segmentation of five different body tissues on computed tomography using deep learning.

Lucy Pu, Naciye S Gezer, Syed F Ashraf, Iclal Ocak, Daniel E Dresser, Rajeev Dhupar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. CT-Derived Features as Predictors of Clot Burden and Resolution.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

6 authors.

Lucy PuDepartment, of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Naciye S GezerDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Syed F AshrafNorth Allegheny Senior High School, Wexford, USA.
Iclal OcakDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Daniel E DresserDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rajeev DhuparDepartment, of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Dan Paul Zandberg · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
CSRD VA IK2 CX001771NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904UPMC Hillman Cancer Center AcademyVA Career Development Award CX001771-01A2VA Career Development Award PI: Dhupar
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop and validate a computer tool for automatic and simultaneous segmentation of five body tissues depicted on computed tomography (CT) scans: visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT), skeletal muscle (SM), and bone.

methodsA cohort of 100 CT scans acquired on different subjects were collected from The Cancer Imaging Archive-50 whole-body positron emission tomography-CTs, 25 chest, and 25 abdominal. Five different body tissues (i.e., VAT, SAT, IMAT, SM, and bone) were manually annotated. A training-while-annotating strategy was used to improve the annotation efficiency. The 10-fold cross-validation method was used to develop and validate the performance of several convolutional neural networks (CNNs), including UNet, Recurrent Residual UNet (R2Unet), and UNet++. A grid-based three-dimensional patch sampling operation was used to train the CNN models. The CNN models were also trained and tested separately for each body tissue to see if they could achieve a better performance than segmenting them jointly. The paired sample t-test was used to statistically assess the performance differences among the involved CNN models

resultsWhen segmenting the five body tissues simultaneously, the Dice coefficients ranged from 0.826 to 0.840 for VAT, from 0.901 to 0.908 for SAT, from 0.574 to 0.611 for IMAT, from 0.874 to 0.889 for SM, and from 0.870 to 0.884 for bone, which were significantly higher than the Dice coefficients when segmenting the body tissues separately (p < 0.05), namely, from 0.744 to 0.819 for VAT, from 0.856 to 0.896 for SAT, from 0.433 to 0.590 for IMAT, from 0.838 to 0.871 for SM, and from 0.803 to 0.870 for bone.

conclusionThere were no significant differences among the CNN models in segmenting body tissues, but jointly segmenting body tissues achieved a better performance than segmenting them separately.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAdipose TissueHumansNeural Networks, ComputerSubcutaneous FatTomography, X-Ray Computedbody compositioncomputed tomographyconvolutional neural networkimage segmentation

Identifiers

PMID36008356
PMCPMC11186697

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.