ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
AutoLMISeg: A Fully Automated Pipeline for 3D Lumbar Muscle Volumetry and Densitometry on CT - Technical Validation Against an Operator-Driven Workflow.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Opportunistic body composition analysis using single-slice 2D computed tomography scans is limited by anatomical variations and field-of-view constraints. Although 3D volumetry is more comprehensive, it is not widely adopted due to the time-consuming nature of manual segmentation. The objective is to technically validate AutoLMISeg (Automated Lumbar Muscle Index Segmentation), a fully automated "zero-click" deep learning pipeline for 3D L1-L5 lumbar muscle volumetry and densitometry. Sixty-nine CT scans were analyzed retrospectively. AutoLMISeg (GPU-accelerated) was compared to a human-in-the-loop reference standard (operator-driven segmentation). Accuracy was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and volumetric agreement was evaluated using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Processing times were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. AutoLMISeg showed excellent spatial agreement, with a mean DSC of 0.928 ± 0.019. Volumetric concordance was nearly perfect (CCC = 0.971), with a negligible mean bias of + 16.32 cm
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834297What 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.