Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 35 references

A Study of Anatomical Priors for Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of Pheochromocytoma in Abdominal CT

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding kidney and aorta as auxiliary training labels improves deep-learning segmentation of pheochromocytoma in abdominal CT.

desk verdict Useful systematic ranking of anatomical priors for PCC segmentation, but the 'significant' claim is undercut by post-hoc selection on the same test set; send to review with required statistical corrections. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15193 v2 pith:YR4C4W5B submitted 2025-07-21 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Tanjin Taher Toma , Tejas Sudharshan Mathai , Bikash Santra , Pritam Mukherjee , Jianfei Liu , Wesley Jong , Darwish Alabyad , Vivek Batheja
show 6 more authors
Abhishek Jha Mayank Patel Darko Pucar Jayadira del Rivero Karel Pacak Ronald M. Summers
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords pheochromocytomasegmentationanatomicalpriorsmulti-classannotationabdominalCTnnU-Nettumorburdenquantificationdeeplearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the anatomical context fed to a deep-learning segmenter can be chosen to make pheochromocytoma (PCC) segmentation from contrast-enhanced abdominal CT more accurate. It trains 3D nnU-Net models under eleven different annotation schemes and claims that labeling the tumor together with the adjacent kidney and aorta (TKA) gives the best results, outperforming the previously used tumor-plus-body (TB) scheme on Dice similarity, surface distance, and instance-level F1. The improvement is large enough that the authors report $p = 0.0097$ for DSC, $p = 0.0110$ for NSD, a 25.84% F1 gain at IoU $= 0.5$, and better tumor-burden quantification ($R^2 = 0.968$). The practical stake is that a reliable automated PCC segmentation tool could support tumor burden monitoring and reduce reliance on expensive genetic testing by enabling cluster inference from imaging.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-class annotation strategy used to train nnU-Net: tumor voxels plus auxiliary voxel labels for nearby organs, with only the tumor class extracted at inference time. The auxiliary labels are generated by merging expert tumor annotations with organ masks from an automated whole-body segmentation tool, creating eleven training-label combinations. The network is a 3D full-resolution nnU-Net trained with a composite cross-entropy and soft Dice loss; the load-bearing step is that the auxiliary labels act as anatomical priors that guide the network's localization of the tumor.

What would settle it

Run a confirmatory study with a pre-specified primary comparison between the TKA and TB annotations on a held-out multi-center CT cohort, assigning the split before any model selection; if TKA does not beat TB on DSC, NSD, or F1 at IoU = 0.5, the paper's central claim fails. A simpler internal check: apply a Bonferroni correction for the eleven strategy comparisons to the reported p-values and see whether TKA-vs-TB remains significant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that organ-specific anatomical priors, not a broad body-region prior, should accompany the tumor label when training a 3D segmentation network for pheochromocytoma. Among eleven schemes, Tumor + Kidney + Aorta (TKA) produced the highest DSC ($0.8599 \pm 0.093$), NSD ($0.8139 \pm 0.148$), and instance-wise F1 ($0.857$ at IoU $= 0.5$), and these gains held for every genetic subtype and across five-fold cross-validation. The authors interpret this as evidence that the kidney and aorta provide relevant spatial context that helps localize a small, heterogeneous adrenal tumor, while larger organs such as liver and spleen hurt performance, likely through class imbalance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 31-scan test set is an independent confirmation of TKA's superiority, but the same test set was used to select TKA from eleven annotation strategies; if that selection invalidates the statistical test, the 'significant' claim weakens, though the descriptive ranking may still hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A TKA-trained model can be used to quantify PCC tumor burden from routine portal venous CT, with predicted volumes correlating strongly with ground truth ($R^2 = 0.968$).
  • The TKA advantage persists across SDHx, VHL/EPAS1, kinase, and sporadic genetic subtypes, so the method does not appear to overfit one tumor phenotype.
  • Adding kidney and aorta labels is a cheap intervention: the auxiliary masks come from an automated tool, and only the tumor label is needed at inference.
  • The same evaluation shows that piling on more anatomical classes (liver, spleen, body) degrades accuracy, so prior design should favor a small set of nearby organs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported p-values should be read as descriptive rather than confirmatory, because the test set was used both to pick TKA as the best of eleven strategies and then to test it against TB; a pre-registered split or multiple-comparison correction would be needed to make the significance claim airtight.
  • One plausible mechanism the paper does not isolate is that kidney and aorta act as stable anatomical landmarks near the adrenal bed, and the benefit may be mostly spatial context rather than tissue-class information; an ablation with randomly displaced organ masks could test this.
  • The recipe may transfer to other small retroperitoneal or adrenal lesions, such as adrenal adenomas or paragangliomas, where nearby-organ priors could supply similar localization cues.
  • A testable extension is whether the TKA gain grows with smaller training sets: if the prior mainly reduces the search space, its value should increase when data are scarce.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates eleven multi-class annotation strategies for 3D nnU-Net segmentation of pheochromocytoma (PCC) in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT, using anatomical priors such as kidney, aorta, adrenal gland, liver, spleen, and body region. On a 70-30 patient-level split of 105 scans, the Tumor+Kidney+Aorta (TKA) strategy ranks first in DSC, NSD, and instance-wise F1, and the paper claims it significantly outperforms the previously used Tumor+Body (TB) strategy. The authors also report tumor-burden correlation (R^2=0.968 for TKA) and a five-fold cross-validation comparison across IoU thresholds. The descriptive ranking is well supported by the reported metrics, but the inferential claim of significant superiority is weakened by the fact that TKA was selected post hoc on the same test set used for the significance tests, and by an internal inconsistency between the Methods and the Abstract regarding where the p-values come from.

Significance. If the results hold, the study makes a useful clinical contribution: it systematically maps the space of anatomical priors for PCC segmentation, identifies kidney and aorta as effective auxiliary labels, and provides detailed training configurations that facilitate replication. The five-fold cross-validation and subtype-stratified results strengthen the descriptive finding. However, the central claim that TKA 'significantly outperforms' TB is currently not established at the stated confidence level because the significance tests are performed after selecting the winning strategy on the same test data, and no multiple-comparison adjustment is reported. The descriptive ranking and large effect size are encouraging, but the inferential language in the abstract and discussion needs to be supported by a valid estimation protocol or explicitly softened.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4 vs. Abstract/Figure 5] There is a direct inconsistency about which protocol produced the p-values. Section 2.4 states that 'the best-performing model from the eleven approaches was first determined' and that 'For this comparison, both models were trained on the entire dataset (105 scans) using five-fold cross-validation,' while the Abstract and Figure 5 attribute the DSC (p=0.0097) and NSD (p=0.0110) values to the 70-30 test split. The authors must state unambiguously whether the p-values come from the 31-scan test set or from cross-validation. If they come from the test set, the Methods paragraph is wrong; if they come from cross-validation, the test-set p-values are unreported and the cross-validation comparison still lacks a paired significance test across folds.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Section 2.5] The reported Wilcoxon signed-rank p-values are not valid confirmatory significance tests because TKA was selected as the best of eleven strategies on the same 31-scan test set used for the comparison. Under the null hypothesis that all eleven strategies perform equally, the maximum over eleven strategies is far more likely to yield a nominally significant p-value than a pre-specified comparison would. The authors should either report results on a confirmatory held-out split that was not used for model selection, apply a multiple-comparison correction across the eleven strategies, or present the p-values explicitly as exploratory rather than confirmatory.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The claim that TKA 'significantly outperforms' TB on F1 score (25.84% improvement at IoU=0.5) is not supported by any significance test. Section 2.5 states that p-values were computed only for DSC and NSD, and no confidence interval or paired test is reported for F1. The wording 'significantly outperforming' should be removed for F1 unless an appropriate statistical test is provided, or the sentence should be rephrased to describe the F1 improvement as a descriptive difference.
  4. [Section 2.2] The reference standard for approximately half of the dataset was generated by an iterative framework in which an nnU-Net model's predictions were used to seed annotations that residents then refined. Because the same nnU-Net architecture is later evaluated, the test labels may be partially biased toward model predictions. The manuscript should report annotation-refinement statistics (e.g., the extent of edits made by residents per volume) or re-annotate an independent subset by a senior radiologist to demonstrate that the reference standard is not systematically biased.
  5. [Section 3.1 and Figure 4] The five-fold cross-validation comparison is presented as evidence that 'TKA consistently outperforms TB,' but Figure 4 shows only mean F1 curves without per-fold distributions, error bars, or any statistical test across folds. The descriptive consistency is useful, but the robustness claim would be stronger with fold-wise paired tests or clear visualization of the per-fold spread.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The genetic-subtype results are based on very small test subgroups (e.g., n=5 for VHL/EPAS1 and n=6 for SDHx), so the subtype-level differences should be labeled as descriptive rather than as evidence of subtype-specific superiority.
  2. [Section 2.4] The dataset division is described as random at the patient level with 105 scans from 91 patients, but the manuscript does not state how patients with multiple scans were handled when assigning scans to train and test splits. Please clarify whether all scans from a given patient were kept in the same split and how this was ensured.
  3. [Equations (1)-(3)] The composite loss is standard, but the definition of L_Dice as a class-averaged Dice across C classes should state explicitly whether the average is taken over all classes including background or only foreground classes, since this affects the relative weighting of auxiliary anatomical labels.
  4. [Figure 2] The caption notes that the same organ may appear in different colors across subfigures because colors are assigned by class index. To make visual comparison easier, consider using a fixed color map for each anatomical structure across all annotation strategies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TKA-versus-TB comparison is an empirical benchmark against external ground-truth annotations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical measurements of nnU-Net segmentation quality against expert-refined ground-truth labels on held-out CT volumes. The eleven annotation strategies (T, TB, TKA, etc.) are distinct input label configurations; the reported DSC, NSD, F1, and R^2 values are outputs of trained models evaluated on test or cross-validation data, not quantities equivalent by construction to the training labels. The TKA-versus-TB comparison is a direct empirical contrast: neither model's metric is defined in terms of the other, and no parameter is fitted to the test-set metric and then renamed a prediction. The anatomical priors come from an external tool (TotalSegmentator) and human annotations, not from the paper's own derivation. Section 2.4 states that 'the best-performing model from the eleven approaches was first determined' before comparison against TB, which raises a legitimate selection/multiple-comparison concern for the reported p-values; however, that is a statistical validity issue rather than circular reasoning, because the ranking and p-values are not logically forced by the definitions. The iterative annotation framework (Section 2.2) uses nnU-Net predictions as seeds for resident refinement, which is a mild self-dependence in the reference standard, but it applies equally to all compared models and does not define TKA's superiority. Self-citations to prior TB work [24,25] serve as a baseline, not as an unverified premise for the superiority claim. No uniqueness theorem, no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, and no ansatz-smuggled-via-citation pattern is present. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce any new entities or fitted numerical constants. The main assumptions concern the reliability of the TotalSegmentator priors, the quality of the iterative reference annotations, and the statistical validity of the post-selection p-values.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption TotalSegmentator provides accurate organ masks (kidney, aorta, adrenal, liver, spleen, pancreas) for all 105 CECT scans.
    Section 2.2: organ priors are derived from TS. If TS segmentations are incorrect for this cohort (e.g., due to anatomy variants, contrast phase, or tumor compression), the training labels are misaligned. The paper does not validate TS outputs on the study cohort.
  • domain assumption The iterative annotation framework (nnU-Net seeded labels refined by residents) yields reference annotations of comparable quality to full manual annotation.
    Section 2.2: 52 volumes were manually annotated, and the remainder were labeled via an iterative model plus human refinement. Inter-observer variability is not reported; errors in the reference standard affect all models equally but could bias the comparison.
  • standard math The Wilcoxon signed-rank test on the 31 test volumes is a valid significance test for paired DSC and NSD differences.
    Section 2.5: the test is standard, but its validity is undermined by the fact that the test set was used to select TKA as the best model before computing p-values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Study of Anatomical Priors for Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of Pheochromocytoma in Abdominal CT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YR4C4W5B

@misc{pith2026250715193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Study of Anatomical Priors for Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of Pheochromocytoma in Abdominal CT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YR4C4W5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15193}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate segmentation of pheochromocytoma (PCC) in abdominal CT scans is essential for tumor burden estimation, prognosis, and treatment planning. It may also help infer genetic clusters, reducing reliance on expensive testing. This study systematically evaluates anatomical priors to identify configurations that improve deep learning-based PCC segmentation. We employed the nnU-Net framework to evaluate eleven annotation strategies for accurate 3D segmentation of pheochromocytoma, introducing a set of novel multi-class schemes based on organ-specific anatomical priors. These priors were derived from adjacent organs commonly surrounding adrenal tumors (e.g., liver, spleen, kidney, aorta, adrenal gland, and pancreas), and were compared against a broad body-region prior used in previous work. The framework was trained and tested on 105 contrast-enhanced CT scans from 91 patients at the NIH Clinical Center. Performance was measured using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Normalized Surface Distance (NSD), and instance-wise F1 score. Among all strategies, the Tumor + Kidney + Aorta (TKA) annotation achieved the highest segmentation accuracy, significantly outperforming the previously used Tumor + Body (TB) annotation across DSC (p = 0.0097), NSD (p = 0.0110), and F1 score (25.84% improvement at an IoU threshold of 0.5), measured on a 70-30 train-test split. The TKA model also showed superior tumor burden quantification (R^2 = 0.968) and strong segmentation across all genetic subtypes. In five-fold cross-validation, TKA consistently outperformed TB across IoU thresholds (0.1 to 0.5), reinforcing its robustness and generalizability. These findings highlight the value of incorporating relevant anatomical context into deep learning models to achieve precise PCC segmentation, offering a valuable tool to support clinical assessment and longitudinal disease monitoring in PCC patients.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Endocrine practice 24(1), 78–90 (2018)

    Mercado-Asis, L.B., Wolf, K.I., Jochmanova, I., Ta ¨ ıeb, D.: Pheochromocytoma: a genetic and diagnostic update. Endocrine practice 24(1), 78–90 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    The Lancet 366(9486), 665–675 (2005)

    Lenders, J.W., Eisenhofer, G., Mannelli, M., Pacak, K.: Phaeochromocytoma. The Lancet 366(9486), 665–675 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 90(4), 2110–2116 (2005)

    Amar, L., Servais, A., Gimenez-Roqueplo, A.-P., Zinzindohoue, F., Chatellier, G., Plouin, P.-F.: Year of diagnosis, features at presentation, and risk of recurrence in patients with pheochromocytoma or secreting paraganglioma. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 90(4), 2110–2116 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    part 1 of 2: advances in pathogenesis and diagnosis of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma

    Patel, D., Phay, J.E., Yen, T.W., Dickson, P.V., Wang, T.S., Garcia, R., Yang, A.D., Sol´ orzano, C.C., Kim, L.T.: Update on pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma from the sso endocrine/head and neck disease-site work group. part 1 of 2: advances in pathogenesis and diagnosis of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Annals of surgical oncology 27, 1329–1337 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Endocrine reviews 45(3), 414–434 (2024)

    Timmers, H.J., Ta ¨ ıeb, D., Pacak, K., Lenders, J.W.: Imaging of pheochromocy- tomas and paragangliomas. Endocrine reviews 45(3), 414–434 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Endocrine reviews 43(2), 199–239 (2022)

    N¨ olting, S., Bechmann, N., Taieb, D., Beuschlein, F., Fassnacht, M., Kroiss, M., Eisenhofer, G., Grossman, A., Pacak, K.: Personalized management of pheochro- mocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocrine reviews 43(2), 199–239 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Journal of Molecular Endocrinology 70(3) (2023)

    Casc´ on, A., Calsina, B., Monteagudo, M., Mellid, S., D ´ ıaz-Talavera, A., Curr´ as- Freixes, M., Robledo, M.: Genetic bases of pheochromocytoma and paragan- glioma. Journal of Molecular Endocrinology 70(3) (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Cancers 15(18), 4601 (2023)

    Luca, E., Zitzmann, K., Bornstein, S., Kugelmeier, P., Beuschlein, F., N¨ olting, S., Hantel, C.: Three dimensional models of endocrine organs and target tissues regulated by the endocrine system. Cancers 15(18), 4601 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Current problems in cancer 38(1), 7–41 (2014)

    Martucci, V.L., Pacak, K.: Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: diagnosis, genetics, management, and treatment. Current problems in cancer 38(1), 7–41 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Pediatric Nephrology35, 581– 594 (2020)

    Jain, A., Baracco, R., Kapur, G.: Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma—an update on diagnosis, evaluation, and management. Pediatric Nephrology35, 581– 594 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Annals of surgical oncology 24, 1546–1550 (2017) 18

    Strajina, V., Dy, B.M., Farley, D.R., Richards, M.L., McKenzie, T.J., Bible, K.C., Que, F.G., Nagorney, D.M., Young, W.F., Thompson, G.B.: Surgical treatment of malignant pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: retrospective case series. Annals of surgical oncology 24, 1546–1550 (2017) 18

    2017

  4. [12]

    S ¸i¸ sli Etfal Hastanesi Tip B¨ ulteni54(4), 391–398 (2020)

    Aygun, N., Uludag, M.: Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: from treatment to follow-up. S ¸i¸ sli Etfal Hastanesi Tip B¨ ulteni54(4), 391–398 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    American Journal of Roentgenology 194(6), 1450–1460 (2010)

    Blake, M.A., Cronin, C.G., Boland, G.W.: Adrenal imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology 194(6), 1450–1460 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Radiology 278(2), 563–577 (2016)

    Gillies, R.J., Kinahan, P.E., Hricak, H.: Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278(2), 563–577 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    In: International Workshop on Applications of Medical AI, pp

    Santra, B., Jha, A., Mukherjee, P., Patel, M., Pacak, K., Summers, R.M.: Anatomical location-guided deep learning-based genetic cluster identification of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas from ct images. In: International Workshop on Applications of Medical AI, pp. 62–71 (2...

    2023

  8. [16]

    In: Medical Imaging 2025: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, vol

    Makroo, O., Santra, B., Mukherjee, P., Mathai, T.S., Jha, A., Patel, M., Pacak, K., Summers, R.M.: Enhanced identification of pheochromocytoma and paragan- gliomas’ genetic clusters from CT. In: Medical Imaging 2025: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, vol. 13407, pp. 314–318 (2025). SPIE

    2025

  9. [17]

    Insights into Imaging 16(1), 1–15 (2025)

    Zhou, Y., Zhan, Y., Zhao, J., Zhong, L., Zou, F., Zhu, X., Zeng, Q., Nan, J., Gong, L., Tan, Y., et al.: CT-based radiomics deep learning signatures for non-invasive prediction of metastatic potential in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: a multicohort study. Insights into Im...

    2025

  10. [18]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993–2024 (2014)

    Menze, B.H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., Kirby, J., Burren, Y., Porz, N., Slotboom, J., Wiest, R., et al.: The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993–2024 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Medical image analysis 42, 60–88 (2017)

    Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B.E., Setio, A.A.A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., Van Der Laak, J.A., Van Ginneken, B., S´ anchez, C.I.: A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Medical image analysis 42, 60–88 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer- assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18, pp

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer- assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18, pp...

    2015

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp

    Hatamizadeh, A., Tang, Y., Nath, V., Yang, D., Myronenko, A., Landman, B., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: UNETR: Transformers for 3D medical image segmenta- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 574–584 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, pp

    Hatamizadeh, A., Nath, V., Tang, Y., Yang, D., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: Swin UNETR: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in MRI images. In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, pp. 272–284 (2021). 19 Springer

    2021

  15. [23]

    Nature methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 116, 102419 (2024)

    Oluigbo, D., Mathai, T.S., Santra, B., Mukherjee, P., Liu, J., Jha, A., Patel, M., Pacak, K., Summers, R.M.: Weakly supervised detection of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas in CT using noisy data. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 116, 102419 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    In: SPIE Medical Imaging 2024: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, vol

    Oluigbo, D.C., Santra, B., Mathai, T.S., Mukherjee, P., Liu, J., Jha, A., Patel, M., Pacak, K., Summers, R.M.: Weakly supervised detection of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas in CT. In: SPIE Medical Imaging 2024: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, vol. 12927, p. 129270 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 1–7 (2024)

    Bhadra, S., Liu, J., Summers, R.M.: Subcutaneous edema segmentation on abdominal CT using multi-class labels and iterative annotation. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 1–7 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 19(8), 1537–1544 (2024)

    Mathai, T.S., Liu, B., Summers, R.M.: Segmentation of mediastinal lymph nodes in CT with anatomical priors. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 19(8), 1537–1544 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Neuroimage 31(3), 1116–1128 (2006)

    Yushkevich, P.A., Piven, J., Hazlett, H.C., Smith, R.G., Ho, S., Gee, J.C., Gerig, G.: User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31(3), 1116–1128 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), 230024 (2023)

    Wasserthal, J., Breit, H.-C., Meyer, M.T., Pradella, M., Hinck, D., Sauter, A.W., Heye, T., Boll, D.T., Cyriac, J., Yang, S.,et al.: Totalsegmentator: robust segmen- tation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), 230024 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701 (2022)

    Cardoso, M.J., Li, W., Brown, R., Ma, N., Kerfoot, E., Wang, Y., Murrey, B., Myronenko, A., Zhao, C., Yang, D., et al.: MONAI: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Medical image analysis 84, 102680 (2023)

    Bilic, P., Christ, P., Li, H.B., Vorontsov, E., Ben-Cohen, A., Kaissis, G., Sze- skin, A., Jacobs, C., Mamani, G.E.H., Chartrand, G., et al.: The liver tumor segmentation benchmark (LiTS). Medical image analysis 84, 102680 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Expert Systems with Applications 238, 122094 (2024) 20

    Toma, T.T., Wang, Y., Gahlmann, A., Acton, S.T.: Deepseeded: Volumetric seg- mentation of dense cell populations with a cascade of deep neural networks in bacterial biofilm applications. Expert Systems with Applications 238, 122094 (2024) 20

    2024

  25. [33]

    Nature communications 13(1), 4128 (2022)

    Antonelli, M., Reinke, A., Bakas, S., Farahani, K., Kopp-Schneider, A., Landman, B.A., Litjens, G., Menze, B., Ronneberger, O., Summers, R.M.,et al.: The medical segmentation decathlon. Nature communications 13(1), 4128 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Frontiers in oncology13, 1248249 (2023)

    Chen, P., Scarpelli, M.L., Healey, D.R., Mehta, S., Quarles, C.C.: MRI and amino acid pet detection of whole-brain tumor burden. Frontiers in oncology13, 1248249 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    multi-lesion imaging biomarkers as predictors of patient survival

    Fleckenstein, F.N., Schernthaner, R.E., Duran, R., Sohn, J.H., Sahu, S., Zhao, Y., Hamm, B., Gebauer, B., Lin, M., Geschwind, J.-F.,et al.: 3D quantitative tumour burden analysis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before tace: comparing single-lesion vs. multi-lesion im...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.