ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2026
In search of truth: evaluating concordance of AI-based anatomy segmentation models.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Artificial intelligence based methods for anatomy segmentation can help automate characterization of large imaging datasets. The growing number of similar functionality models raises the challenge of evaluating them on datasets that do not contain ground truth annotations. We introduce a practical framework to assist in this task. Approach: We harmonize the segmentation results into a standard, interoperable representation, which enables consistent, terminology-based labeling of the structures. We extend 3D Slicer to streamline loading and comparison of these harmonized segmentations and demonstrate how standard representation simplifies review of the results using interactive summary plots and browser-based visualization using the OHIF Viewer. To demonstrate the utility of the approach, we apply it to evaluating segmentation of 31 anatomical structures (lungs, vertebrae, ribs, and heart) by 6 open-source models-TotalSegmentator 1.5 and 2.6, Auto3DSeg, MOOSE, MultiTalent, and CADS-for a sample of computed tomography scans from the publicly available National Lung Screening Trial dataset. Results: We demonstrate the utility of the framework in enabling automating loading, structure-wise inspection, and comparison across models. Preliminary results ascertain the practical utility of the approach in allowing quick detection and review of problematic results. The comparison shows excellent agreement segmenting some (e.g., lung) but not all structures (e.g., some models produce invalid vertebrae or rib segmentations). Conclusions: The open-source resources developed include segmentation harmonization scripts, interactive summary plots, and visualization tools. These resources assist in segmentation model evaluation in the absence of ground truth, ultimately enabling informed model selection.
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.