ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
AirSeg: Learnable Interconnected Attention Framework for Robust Airway Segmentation.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate airway segmentation is vital for diagnosing and managing lung diseases, yet it remains challenging due to data imbalance and difficulty detecting small airway branches. This study proposes AirSeg, a learnable interconnected attention framework incorporating advanced attention mechanisms and a learnable embedding module, to enhance airway segmentation accuracy in computed tomography (CT) images. The proposed framework integrates multiple attention mechanisms, including image, positional, semantic, self-channel, and cross-spatial attention, to refine feature representations at various network and data levels. Additionally, a learnable variance-based embedding module dynamically adjusts input features, improving robustness against spatial inconsistencies and noise. This improves the model's robustness to spatial inconsistencies and noise, leading to more reliable segmentation results, especially in clinically challenging regions. AirSeg can be integrated with any UNet-like network with flexibility. The framework was evaluated on two datasets (in vivo and in situ) using several UNet-based architectures, comparing performance with and without AirSeg integration. Training employed data augmentation, a hybrid loss function combining Dice Similarity Coefficient and Intersection over Union losses, and statistical analysis to assess accuracy improvements. Integrating AirSeg into segmentation models led to statistically significant improvements in accuracy. Specifically, accuracy increased by 16.18% (p = 0.0035) for in vivo datasets and by 10.32% (p = 0.0097) for in situ datasets. These enhancements enable more precise identification of airway structures, including small branches, critical for early diagnosis and treatment planning in pulmonary care. The proposed model achieved a weighted average accuracy improvement of 12.43% (p = 0.0004) over other conventional models. AirSeg demonstrated superior performance in capturing both global structures and fine details, effectively segmenting large airways and intricate branches. Ablation studies validated the contributions and impact of individual attention mechanisms and the embedding module. The improvement in accuracy translates to more precise airway segmentation, enhancing the detection of small branches crucial for early diagnosis and treatment planning. The statistically significant p-values confirm that these gains are reliable, reducing manual correction efforts and improving the efficiency of automated airway analysis in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.