Key result
An automatic segmentation model for T2 MRI scans performed as well as on CISS (p>0.35) and outperformed independent manual segmentation (p<0.023).
Why the study?
T2 mapping of the anterior cruciate ligament requires manual image segmentation, which is time-consuming and prone to inter- and intra-segmenter variability.
Does an automated segmentation model using transfer learning perform as well as manual segmentation for T2 relaxometry MRI scans of the ACL?
Does an automated segmentation model using transfer learning perform as well as manual segmentation for T2 relaxometry MRI scans of the ACL?
An automated deep learning model can accurately segment the ACL on T2 MRI scans, performing as well as or better than manual segmentation, which could streamline clinical workflow.
Supports automated T2 segmentation feasibility; leaves open prospective clinical validation before practice change.
Collagen organization of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) can be evaluated using T2* relaxometry. However, T2* mapping requires manual image segmentation, which is a time‐consuming process and prone to inter‐ and intra‐ segmenter variability. Automating segmentation would address these challenges. A model previously trained using Constructive Interference in Steady State (CISS) scans was applied to T2* segmentation via transfer learning. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in the model's segmentation performance between T2* and CISS, structural measures versus ground truth manual segmentation, and reliability versus independent and retest manual segmentation. Transfer learning was conducted using 54 T2* scans of the ACL. Segmentation performance was assessed with Dice coefficient, precision, and sensitivity, and structurally withT2* value, volume, subvolume proportions, and cross‐sectional area. Model performance relative to independent manual segmentation and repeated segmentation by the ground truth segmenter (retest) were evaluated on a random subset. Segmentation performance was analyzed with Mann–WhitneyUtests, structural measures with Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests, and performance relative to manual segmentation with repeated‐measures analysis of variance/Tukey tests (α = 0.05). T2* segmentation performance was not significantly different from CISS on all measures (p > 0.35). No significant differences were detected in structural measures (p > 0.50). Automatic segmentation performed as well as the retest on all segmentation measures, whereas independent segmentations were lower than retest and/or automatic segmentation (p < 0.023). Structural measures were not significantly different between segmenters. The automatic segmentation model performed as well on the T2* sequence as on CISS and outperformed independent manual segmentation while performing as well as retest segmentation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Flannery et al. (2022) studied Healed anterior cruciate ligament (n=54). Automated segmentation model via transfer learning vs. Manual segmentation and CISS scans was evaluated on Segmentation performance (Dice coefficient, precision, sensitivity) and structural measures (p=>0.35). An automatic segmentation model for T2 MRI scans performed as well as on CISS (p>0.35) and outperformed independent manual segmentation (p<0.023).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: