Evidence mapPaperPMID 40291815Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025

Influence of early through late fusion on pancreas segmentation from imperfectly registered multimodal magnetic resonance imaging.

Lucas W Remedios, Han Liu, Samuel W Remedios, Lianrui Zuo, Adam M Saunders, Shunxing Bao, Yuankai Huo, Alvin C Powers, John Virostko, Bennett A Landman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

10 authors.

Lucas W RemediosVanderbilt University, Department of Computer Science, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Han LiuVanderbilt University, Department of Computer Science, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4756-7149
Samuel W RemediosJohns Hopkins University, Department of Computer Science, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
Lianrui ZuoVanderbilt University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5923-9097
Adam M SaundersVanderbilt University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2912-9759
Shunxing BaoVanderbilt University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6376-4292
Yuankai HuoVanderbilt University, Department of Computer Science, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2096-8065
Alvin C PowersVanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
John VirostkoUniversity of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School, Department of Diagnostic Medicine, Austin, Texas, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-8801
Bennett A LandmanVanderbilt University, Department of Computer Science, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5733-2127

Funding

Vanderbilt Diabetes Research CenterP30DK020593 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI ALVIN C POWERS · 2012 to 2026
$29.3M
TRANSGENIC MOUSE/ ES CELL SHARES RESOURCESP60DK020593 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ELASY, TOM A · 1986 to 2011
$28.1M
Integrated Training in Engineering and DiabetesT32DK101003 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI Jamey D. Young · 2014 to 2026
$3.9M
Deep Learning of Pancreas MRI to Predict Progression of T1D.R03DK129979 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI VIROSTKO, JOHN MICHAEL · 2021 to 2022
$317k
BLRD VA I01 BX000666NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK020593NIDDK NIH HHS P60 DK020593NIDDK NIH HHS R03 DK129979NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK101003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Combining different types of medical imaging data, through multimodal fusion, promises better segmentation of anatomical structures, such as the pancreas. Strategic implementation of multimodal fusion could improve our ability to study diseases such as diabetes. However, where to perform fusion in deep learning models is still an open question. It is unclear if there is a single best location to fuse information when analyzing pairs of imperfectly aligned images or if the optimal fusion location depends on the specific model being used. Two main challenges when using multiple imaging modalities to study the pancreas are (1) the pancreas and surrounding abdominal anatomy have a deformable structure, making it difficult to consistently align the images and (2) breathing by the individual during image collection further complicates the alignment between multimodal images. Even after using state-of-the-art deformable image registration techniques, specifically designed to align abdominal images, multimodal images of the abdomen are often not perfectly aligned. We examine how the choice of different fusion points, ranging from early in the image processing pipeline to later stages, impacts the segmentation of the pancreas on imperfectly registered multimodal magnetic resonance (MR) images. Approach: Our dataset consists of 353 pairs of T2-weighted (T2w) and T1-weighted (T1w) abdominal MR images from 163 subjects with accompanying pancreas segmentation labels drawn mainly based on the T2w images. Because the T2w images were acquired in an interleaved manner across two breath holds and the T1w images on one breath hold, there were three different breath holds impacting the alignment of each pair of images. We used deeds, a state-of-the-art deformable abdominal image registration method to align the image pairs. Then, we trained a collection of basic UNets with different fusion points, spanning from early to late layers in the model, to assess how early through late fusion influenced segmentation performance on imperfectly aligned images. To investigate whether performance differences on key fusion points are generalized to other architectures, we expanded our experiments to nnUNet. Results: The single-modality T2w baseline using a basic UNet model had a median Dice score of 0.766, whereas the same baseline on the nnUNet model achieved 0.824. For each fusion approach, we analyzed the differences in performance with Dice residuals, by subtracting the baseline score from the fusion score for each datapoint. For the basic UNet, the best fusion approach was from early/mid fusion and occurred in the middle of the encoder with a median Dice residual of Conclusions: Fusion in specific blocks can improve performance, but the best blocks for fusion are model-specific, and the gains are small. In imperfectly registered datasets, fusion is a nuanced problem, with the art of design remaining vital for uncovering potential insights. Future innovation is needed to better address fusion in cases of imperfect alignment of abdominal image pairs. The code associated with this project is available here https://github.com/MASILab/influence_of_fusion_on_pancreas_segmentation.

Indexed as

fusionmagnetic resonance imagingmultimodalnnUNetpancreas segmentationregistrationUNet

Identifiers

PMID40291815
PMCPMC12032765

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.