Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 19 references

Deep Learning-Based Fetal Lung Segmentation from Diffusion-weighted MRI Images and Lung Maturity Evaluation for Fetal Growth Restriction

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a deep learning model trained on the baseline ($b=0$) frames of 4D diffusion-weighted MRI can replace manual fetal lung segmentation, because the IVIM maturity parameters computed from its automatic masks are…

desk verdict Competent feasibility study; the segmentation evaluation is solid, but the maturity classifier and the equivalence claim outrun the sample size. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13106 v1 pith:GETMO7KE submitted 2025-07-17 cs.CV cs.LG

Zhennan Xiao , Katharine Brudkiewicz , Zhen Yuan , Rosalind Aughwane , Magdalena Sokolska , Joanna Chappell , Trevor Gaunt , Anna L. David
show 2 more authors
Andrew P. King Andrew Melbourne
This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords fetallungsegmentationdiffusion-weightedMRIintravoxelincoherentmotionnnU-Netgrowthrestrictionmaturityassessmenttotalvolumedeeplearninginmedicalimaging
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 tries to show that the manual step of tracing fetal lungs on diffusion-weighted MRI, the bottleneck in IVIM-based lung maturity assessment, can be replaced by a trained deep-learning segmenter without changing the quantitative conclusions. A 3D nnU-Net trained only on the $b=0$ frames of 4D DWI scans reached a mean Dice coefficient of 82.14% on an independent test set of eighteen images from six fetuses. When IVIM parameters were fitted within automatic versus manual masks, paired t-tests found no statistically significant differences for any parameter under any fusion strategy (all $p \geq 0.1603$). An observed-to-expected total lung volume ratio computed from the automated masks separated FGR from control fetuses perfectly in the six-case test set. If these results hold, a fully automated pipeline could support fetal lung maturity assessment in growth-restricted pregnancies without hours of manual annotation.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two coupled components. The first is a 3D nnU-Net, a self-configuring deep learning segmentation architecture, trained on manually segmented $b = 0$ frames with default five-fold cross-validation, a combined Dice and cross-entropy loss, and 1000 epochs per fold; it supplies the automated lung masks. The second is the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model $S(b) = S_0[ f e^{-bD^*} + (1-f)e^{-bD} ]$, fitted voxel-wise by a two-step Levenberg-Marquardt procedure in which the ADC is prefitted from high b-values and then fixes the tissue diffusion coefficient $D$, so that the perfusion fraction $f$ and pseudo-diffusion coefficient $D^*$ are solved stably. Three mask fusion strategies (intersection OLP, majority vote AVG, union LC) turn the repeated segmentations into a single region of interest, and the observed-to-expected total lung volume ratio built on the gestational-age formula of Cannie et al. carries the FGR classification. The statistical comparison of manual versus automatic IVIM parameters is the mechanism by which the paper claims the automatic masks are equivalent in the quantitative sense that matters clinically.

What would settle it

Measure the agreement between the two experts on the same scans: if expert-to-expert Dice similarity is close to or below the automated model's mean of 82.14%, then the automated masks are indistinguishable from a noisy reference rather than from a true standard. A second decisive test is to apply the trained model to an independent multi-centre cohort acquired on different scanners and compare its IVIM parameters and oeTLV classifications to manual analysis there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that an nnU-Net trained exclusively on the $b = 0$ frames of 4D diffusion-weighted MRI produces fetal lung masks good enough for quantitative IVIM analysis, making manual delineation unnecessary for maturity assessment. The evidence is that the automated masks achieve a mean Dice coefficient of 82.14% and a mean Hausdorff distance of 12.11 mm against expert manual segmentations, and that voxel-wise fitting of the IVIM model $S(b) = S_0[ f e^{-bD^*} + (1-f)e^{-bD} ]$ yields parameter values (volume, $S_0$, $f$, $D^*$, ADC, residual) and intra-mask variability metrics that are statistically indistinguishable between manual and automatic masks (all paired $t$-test $p \geq 0.1603$ for mean parameters and $p \geq 0.0851$ for variability). The AVG fusion strategy, a majority-vote mask from the repeated segmentations, is identified as the most consistently reliable way to convert the network output into a single region of interest. The paper additionally reports that a Youden-index threshold on the observed-to-expected total lung volume (oeTLV) from the training set classified all six test fetuses correctly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two experts' manual segmentations are an accurate reference standard; the paper reports no inter-observer variability, so if those manual outlines are noisy or biased, the statistical equivalence of automated and manual IVIM parameters does not establish clinical accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Manual lung delineation can be dropped from the IVIM-based maturity workflow, since automatic masks reproduce the fitted parameters and their intra-mask variability.
  • The AVG (majority-vote) fusion strategy is the safest choice when converting automated predictions into a final region of interest, because it had the highest average p-value across metrics and the lowest inter-subject coefficient-of-variation difference relative to manual masks.
  • Segmentation accuracy improves with gestational age, while performance is stable across axial and coronal orientations and across FGR and control groups.
  • The observed-to-expected total lung volume ratio, computed automatically, can separate FGR from control fetuses in this dataset, supporting the use of lung volume as an automated screening feature.
  • The pipeline provides the infrastructure for deriving functional maturity biomarkers, such as diffusion and perfusion parameters, to be validated against neonatal respiratory outcomes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the segmenter was trained only on $b=0$ frames but still located the lungs well enough for multi-b fitting, the same model may transfer to other DWI protocols, but this should be tested explicitly across scanners and acquisition settings.
  • Editorial inference: the equivalence claim is only as strong as the manual reference; reporting inter-observer Dice between the two experts and repeating the comparison on more fetuses would decide whether 82.14% Dice reflects clinical accuracy or agreement with one noisy annotation.
  • Editorial inference: the perfect six-case oeTLV classification is a proof of concept, not a validated diagnostic; a reader should await a larger test set with confidence intervals before relying on the 3.751 threshold.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an automated fetal lung maturity evaluation pipeline for DWI MRI: a 3D nnU-Net trained on b=0 frames of 4D DWI scans produces lung segmentations, IVIM model fitting (Eq. 1) is applied to both manual and automatic masks, and an observed-to-expected total lung volume ratio (oeTLV) is used to classify FGR. The segmentation model is evaluated on a subject-disjoint independent test set of 18 images from 6 fetuses, reporting mean Dice 82.14% and mean Hausdorff distance 12.11 mm. Paired t-tests comparing IVIM parameters from manual and automatic segmentations yield all p-values >= 0.1603, and an oeTLV threshold trained on the training set achieves 100% accuracy on the 6-case test set. The authors conclude that deep learning can reliably replace manual delineation and support automated fetal lung maturity assessment.

Significance. If the equivalence and classification claims were fully supported, this would be a useful feasibility contribution toward automating IVIM-based fetal lung assessment. The manuscript has real strengths: strict subject-level splitting between training and test sets, 5-fold cross-validation for the segmentation model, transparent per-case reporting in Table 2, and use of a literature-based expected-TLV formula (Eq. 4). However, the significance of the downstream claims is currently limited by the small test cohort and by inferential methods that cannot establish equivalence or a 100% accuracy claim. The segmentation feasibility result is plausible; the maturity-evaluation claims need substantially stronger statistical support before the stated clinical-readiness conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Table 3] The central claim that automated segmentations 'reliably replace manual delineation' is based on failure to reject the null in paired t-tests on 18 images from only 6 fetuses (3 scans per fetus). The paper does not state whether the paired tests account for within-fetus clustering; with six independent fetuses the tests are severely underpowered, so p-values all >= 0.1603 are compatible with clinically meaningful discrepancies. This is a null result, not an equivalence result. The authors should supply equivalence bounds (e.g., TOST), account for clustering, and report effect sizes and confidence intervals. The large differences in inter-subject CV reported in Table 4 (e.g., automated AVG reducing ADC CV in controls by 68.1% compared with manual) suggest that the automatic and manual estimates are not interchangeable in all settings, so the wording of the Discussion overstates the evidence.
  2. [Section 4.3] The oeTLV classifier is reported to achieve 100% accuracy on a 6-case test set (3 FGR, 3 control). With six test cases, this result has negligible statistical weight: a random classifier could produce 6/6 correct with probability 1/64, and the 95% confidence intervals for 3/3 sensitivity and specificity are extremely wide. The training AUC of 0.9924 on the 23-case training set is informative but does not validate the threshold on independent data. The authors should report exact binomial confidence intervals or bootstrap estimates, and should temper the statement that the model 'successfully classified FGR cases' until the threshold is evaluated on a larger independent cohort.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2] No inter-observer variability is reported for the manual segmentations that serve as the reference standard. Two experts segmented the data and three fusion strategies are used, but the paper does not report inter-observer Dice, Hausdorff distance, or IVIM parameter differences. Given that the automated segmentation itself has mean Hausdorff distance 12.11 mm (Table 2), the reference standard's own boundary variability is a critical confound: the manual-versus-automatic comparison cannot distinguish 'automatic is as good as manual' from 'both are noisy and the sample is too small to tell.' Reporting inter-observer variability is necessary to support the equivalence claim and to calibrate the downstream TLV-based classification.
  4. [Sections 3.2 and 4.3] The training set used for the oeTLV classifier is described inconsistently. Section 3.2 reports 77 training images, while Section 4.3 reports a 23-case training set. Given that the full dataset comprises 95 scans from 30 women and the test set uses 18 images from 6 fetuses, neither number is immediately consistent with the other parts of the paper. The exact composition of the classifier training set (images versus fetuses, manual versus automatic masks) must be clarified, because the Youden threshold and the reported AUC depend on it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The results suggested no differences between the two' should be rephrased as 'no statistically significant differences were detected in this small sample' to avoid implying equivalence.
  2. [Section 5] The phrase 'no systemic bias' should read 'no systematic bias'; also, the statement that the automated pipeline 'reliably captures both the magnitude and internal distribution of IVIM parameters' overstates the evidence from underpowered paired t-tests.
  3. [Table 2] Please define HD as Hausdorff distance in the table caption, and consider reporting the 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance in addition to the mean, since the mean value can be sensitive to a single outlier voxel.
  4. [Figure 3] With only six points, the reported R²=0.74 and p=0.029 for the GA-Dice regression should be interpreted cautiously; a confidence interval for the slope would be helpful.
  5. [Section 3.1] The statement 'The imaging orientation is defined relative to maternal anatomy' is unclear; please specify how fetal orientation affects the coronal versus axial designation.
  6. [Equation (4)] For the Cannie et al. expected-TLV formula, please state the gestational-age range of the normative data and confirm that it covers the 20-36 week range of the present study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the segmentation, IVIM-equivalence, and FGR-classification claims are each validated against externally anchored ground truth or strictly held-out data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. (1) Segmentation: the nnU-Net is trained on manual segmentations (human reference) and evaluated on a disjoint test set of 18 images from 6 fetuses with strict subject separation; Dice and HD are computed against the manual masks, an external reference, so the reported 82.14% mean Dice is a genuine held-out prediction. (2) IVIM comparison: the biexponential IVIM model (Eq. 1) is standard physics from Le Bihan [11], fit to the same diffusion-weighted signals under two different masks; the paired t-tests in Section 4.2 and Table 3 compare outputs of the same fitting procedure, so nothing is produced by a fitted parameter tuned to the comparison target. (3) FGR classification: the oeTLV ratio is built from the externally published Cannie expected-TLV polynomial (Eq. 4) and the observed volume; the Youden threshold (3.751) is fit on the training set and applied to the independent test set (Section 4.3), a standard train/test split with the clinical FGR/control label as ground truth. The Z-score normalization also uses only training-set control statistics. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or defining equation is imported from the authors' prior work. The minor self-citations ([1], [5], [6], [18]) are redundant with external sources (Le Bihan for IVIM; Isensee for nnU-Net) or describe a transparent fusion-strategy choice that does not carry the equivalence claim, since all p-values across all fusion strategies are >= 0.16. Separately, the statistical claim of 'no significant differences' is a null result from only 6 fetuses, and manual inter-observer variability is unreported; those are inference and validation gaps, not circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard imaging models (IVIM, nnU-Net) and an external normative formula, plus two fitted quantities (Youden threshold, Z-score statistics) whose uncertainty is not propagated. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Youden-index threshold for oeTLV classification = 3.751
    Chosen to maximize Youden's index on the 23-case training set (Section 4.3). The claimed 100% test accuracy depends on this threshold, and with 6 test cases the operating point is not stable.
  • Control-group mean and SD for oeTLV Z-score standardization = Not reported in the paper
    oeTLV values are standardized using mean and SD from control cases in the manual training set (Section 2.3). These statistics are fit to the training cohort and carry sampling uncertainty not propagated into the classification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption IVIM biexponential signal model S(b) = S0[f exp(-D*b) + (1-f) exp(-D b)] (Eq. 1)
    Standard biophysical model for diffusion-weighted MRI signal separating perfusion and diffusion compartments; assumed valid for fetal lung tissue.
  • domain assumption ADC from high-b-value monoexponential fit is used to fix D in the IVIM model (Section 2.2)
    The paper assumes the tissue diffusion coefficient D equals the ADC estimated from b>100 s/mm2 data; this approximation is stated but not validated against a full IVIM fit.
  • domain assumption Expected TLV formula from Cannie et al. (Eq. 4) is valid for this cohort
    The oeTLV ratio divides measured TLV by a GA-based normative formula from a separate population; no calibration or verification is reported.
  • domain assumption Manual expert segmentations are the ground truth
    Both training and evaluation use manual traces by two experts, yet inter-observer variability is not reported; the 12.11 mm Hausdorff distance indicates boundary uncertainty.
  • standard math Statistical test assumptions for paired t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests
    Paired t-tests assume normally distributed differences; normality was only checked for Dice distributions, not for IVIM parameter differences. With 6 fetuses, the central limit theorem cannot be invoked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning-Based Fetal Lung Segmentation from Diffusion-weighted MRI Images and Lung Maturity Evaluation for Fetal Growth Restriction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GETMO7KE

@misc{pith2026250713106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning-Based Fetal Lung Segmentation from Diffusion-weighted MRI Images and Lung Maturity Evaluation for Fetal Growth Restriction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GETMO7KE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13106}
}
read the original abstract

Fetal lung maturity is a critical indicator for predicting neonatal outcomes and the need for post-natal intervention, especially for pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction. Intra-voxel incoherent motion analysis has shown promising results for non-invasive assessment of fetal lung development, but its reliance on manual segmentation is time-consuming, thus limiting its clinical applicability. In this work, we present an automated lung maturity evaluation pipeline for diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images that consists of a deep learning-based fetal lung segmentation model and a model-fitting lung maturity assessment. A 3D nnU-Net model was trained on manually segmented images selected from the baseline frames of 4D diffusion-weighted MRI scans. The segmentation model demonstrated robust performance, yielding a mean Dice coefficient of 82.14%. Next, voxel-wise model fitting was performed based on both the nnU-Net-predicted and manual lung segmentations to quantify IVIM parameters reflecting tissue microstructure and perfusion. The results suggested no differences between the two. Our work shows that a fully automated pipeline is possible for supporting fetal lung maturity assessment and clinical decision-making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed framework: manual segmentation of 4D DWI MRI images, data preprocessing, nnU-Net training for automated lung segmentation, and IVIM model fitting using both manual and automated masks to evaluate deep learning as a substitute for manual annotation. 2.2 IVIM Modelling and Parameter Estimation The IVIM mathematical model describes the signal attenuation as: S(b) = S0[fe−D∗ b + (1 − f)e −Db] (1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative fetal lung visibility in different views. (A) Coronal and (B) axial views show clear lung boundaries, while (C) sagittal view has poor definition, limiting its segmentation utility. (0–600 s/mm²) and diffusion directions to capture IVIM dynamics. Each 4D scan typically contained 7–10 temporal frames, each representing a 3D volume. The primary imaging parameters were as follows: repetition time (TR) = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relationship between GA and the Dice coefficient 4.2 Comparison of Manual and Automated IVIM Parameters Paired t-tests on each IVIM parameter (Volume, S0, f, D∗ , ADC, Residual) revealed no significant differences between manual and automatic segmentations for any fusion strategy (all p ≥ 0.1603; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Prenatal diag- nosis 40(1), 38–48 (2020) 10 Zhennan Xiao et al

    Aughwane, R., Ingram, E., Johnstone, E.D., Salomon, L.J., David, A.L., Mel- bourne, A.: Placental mri and its application to fetal intervention. Prenatal diag- nosis 40(1), 38–48 (2020) 10 Zhennan Xiao et al

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Radiology247(1), 197–203 (Apr 2008), https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2471070682

    Cannie, M.M., Jani, J.C., Van Kerkhove, F., Meerschaert, J., De Keyzer, F., Lewi, L., Deprest, J.A., Dymarkowski, S.: Fetal body volume at mr imaging to quantify total fetal lung volume: Normal ranges. Radiology247(1), 197–203 (Apr 2008), https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2471070682

    work page doi:10.1148/radiol.2471070682 2008

  3. [3]

    Prenatal Diagnosis42(5), 628–635 (2022)

    Davidson, J., Uus, A., Egloff, A., Van Poppel, M., Matthew, J., Steinweg, J., De- prez, M., Aertsen, M., Deprest, J., Rutherford, M.: Motion corrected fetal body magnetic resonance imaging provides reliable 3d lung volumes in normal and ab- normal fetuses. Prenatal Diagnosis42(5), 628–635 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging56(1), 11–34 (2022)

    Florkow, M.C., Willemsen, K., Mascarenhas, V.V., Oei, E.H., van Stralen, M., Seevinck, P.R.: Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for three-dimensional bone imaging of musculoskeletal pathologies: a review. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging56(1), 11–34 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Advanced Science 9(30), 2203738 (2022)

    Flouri, D., Darby, J.R., Holman, S.L., Cho, S.K., Dimasi, C.G., Perumal, S.R., Ourselin, S., Aughwane, R., Mufti, N., Macgowan, C.K., et al.: Placental mri pre- dicts fetal oxygenation and growth rates in sheep and human pregnancy. Advanced Science 9(30), 2203738 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Magnetic resonance in medicine83, 2160–2172 (Jun 2020)

    Flouri,D., Owen, D.,Aughwane, R.,Mufti, N.,Maksym, K.,Sokolska, M.,Kendall, G., Bainbridge, A., Atkinson, D., Vercauteren, T., Ourselin, S., David, A.L., Mel- bourne, A.: Improved fetal blood oxygenation and placental estimated measure- ments of diffusion-weighted mri using data-driven bayesian modeling. Magnetic resonance in medicine83, 2160–2172 (Jun 2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    European Journal of Radiology57(2), 261–270 (2006)

    Kasprian, G., Balassy, C., Brugger, P.C., Prayer, D.: Mri of normal and patholog- ical fetal lung development. European Journal of Radiology57(2), 261–270 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Medical Image Analysis101, 103445 (2025)

    Kertes, N., Zaffrani-Reznikov, Y., Afacan, O., Kurugol, S., Warfield, S.K., Freiman, M.: Ivim-morph: Motion-compensated quantitative intra-voxel incoherent mo- tion (ivim) analysis for functional fetal lung maturity assessment from diffusion- weighted mri data. Medical Image A...

    2025

  2. [10]

    Kociołek, M., Strzelecki, M., Obuchowicz, R.: Does image normalization and inten- sity resolution impact texture classification? Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 81, 101716 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Le Bihan, D.: What can we see with ivim mri? Neuroimage187, 56–67 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    The Lancet global health1(1), e26–e36 (2013)

    Lee, A.C., Katz, J., Blencowe, H., Cousens, S., Kozuki, N., Vogel, J.P., Adair, L., Baqui, A.H., Bhutta, Z.A., Caulfield, L.E., et al.: National and regional estimates of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age in 138 low-income and middle-income countries in 20...

    2013

  5. [13]

    Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology1(2), 61 (2008)

    Luo, G., Norwitz, E.R.: Revisiting amniocentesis for fetal lung maturity after 36 weeks’ gestation. Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology1(2), 61 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Ultrasound quarterly 30(1), 61–67 (2014)

    Mills, M., Winter, T.C., Kennedy, A.M., Woodward, P.J.: Determination of fetal lung maturity using magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity measurements. Ultrasound quarterly 30(1), 61–67 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology49, 66–78 (2018)

    Nawathe, A., David, A.L.: Prophylaxis and treatment of foetal growth restriction. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology49, 66–78 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    asl, ivim, and cvr

    Paschoal, A.M., Secchinatto, K.F., da Silva, P.H.R., Zotin, M.C.Z., Dos Santos, A.C., Viswanathan, A., Pontes-Neto, O.M., Leoni, R.F.: Contrast-agent-free state- of-the-art mri on cerebral small vessel disease—part 1. asl, ivim, and cvr. NMR in Biomedicine 35(8), e4742 (2022) ...

    2022

  9. [17]

    IEEE transactions on medical imag- ing 29(6), 1310–1320 (2010)

    Tustison, N.J., Avants, B.B., Cook, P.A., Zheng, Y., Egan, A., Yushkevich, P.A., Gee, J.C.: N4itk: improved n3 bias correction. IEEE transactions on medical imag- ing 29(6), 1310–1320 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    In: 2025 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)

    Yuan, Z., Schabel, M.C., David, A.L., Roberts, V.H., Melbourne, A.: The effect of deep learning segmentation on placental t2* estimation. In: 2025 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). pp. 1–5. IEEE (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    In: 2016 38th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC)

    Yushkevich, P.A., Gao, Y., Gerig, G.: Itk-snap: An interactive tool for semi- automatic segmentation of multi-modality biomedical images. In: 2016 38th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). pp. 3342–3345. IEEE (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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