Compares lobar quantification accuracy in lung imaging using AI models, highlighting their clinical applications.
Lung lobe quantification with SPECT/CT is essential for treatment planning but remains clinically limited by inadequate tools. Although AI-based approaches show promise, their clinical validation is limited. This study compares the clinical accuracy of SPECT/CT-based lobar quantification using open-source and in-house developed segmentation models. We curated a dataset of 200 diverse CT and SPECT scans with expert lobar annotations, graded by segmentation difficulty (Easy, Moderate, Hard). We trained a local AI model on these data and included a novel anatomy-aware softmax modification at inference to improve robustness in missing-lobe cases. Lobar function error was computed as the difference between model- and ground truth-derived function after automated SPECT/CT coregistration. Results were compared across the local model, its anatomy-aware variant, three open-source models, and a commercial tool. Across 40 test cases (10 Easy, 10 Moderate, 20 Hard), no systematic bias was found in lobar function error across models. However, error standard-deviation increased significantly with case complexity for open-source models (0.57 to 5.79%, p < 0.005), particularly in missing-lobe cases (1.61 vs. 7.57%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the local model and commercial tool maintained high accuracy across difficulty (0.51 to 1.4%, p > 0.24). The anatomy-aware softmax modification eliminated false-positive lobe predictions, further improving quantification accuracy. AI-based tools can streamline routine lobar quantification with minimal but necessary physician oversight. SPECT/CT lobar quantification benefited from improved robustness through training with representative data and anatomy-awareness. While publicly available models struggled with complex cases, they produced clinically acceptable results in typical anatomy and mild diseases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: