Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41948672›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2026

In search of truth: evaluating concordance of AI-based anatomy segmentation models.

Lena Giebeler, Deepa Krishnaswamy, David Clunie, Jakob Wasserthal, Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar, Andres Diaz-Pinto, Klaus H Maier-Hein, Murong Xu, Bjoern Menze, Steve Pieper and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Lena GiebelerRWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4562-5263
Deepa KrishnaswamyBrigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3235-1222
David CluniePixelMed Publishing, Bangor, Pennsylvania, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2406-1145
Jakob WasserthalUniversity Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Lalith Kumar Shiyam SundarLudwig Maximilian University Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3004-7937
Andres Diaz-PintoNVIDIA, Santa Clara, California, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4865-8296
Klaus H Maier-HeinGerman Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Murong XuGerman Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4220-4403
Bjoern MenzeUniversity of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Steve PieperIsomics Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4193-9578
Ron KikinisBrigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7227-7058
Andrey FedorovBrigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4806-9413

Funding

Training and DisseminationP41EB015902 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI WESTIN, CARL-FREDRIK · 2012 to 2022
$20.9M
Quantitative Image Informatics for Cancer Research (QIICR)U24CA180918 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI FEDOROV, ANDRIY, KIKINIS, RON · 2013 to 2017
$4.0M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003INCI NIH HHS U24 CA180918NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015902
6 · The paper itself

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

benchmarkingdata harmonizationdigital imaging and communications in medicineimage segmentationopen sourcevisualization

Identifiers

PMID41948672
PMCPMC13050620

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.