MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413981078 · doi:10.1186/s41747-025-00623-9

Lung lobe segmentation: performance of open-source MOOSE, TotalSegmentator, and LungMask models compared to a local in-house model

2025· article· en· W4413981078 on OpenAlex
Elaheh Amini, Ran Klein

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology Experimental · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeneralizability theorySegmentationArtificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)Hausdorff distanceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Sørensen–Dice coefficientImage segmentationImage (mathematics)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lung lobe segmentation is required to assess lobar function with nuclear imaging before surgical interventions. We evaluated the performance of open-source deep learning-based lung lobe segmentation tools, compared to a similar nnU-Net model trained on a smaller but more representative clinical dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collated and semi-automatically segmented an internal dataset of 164 computed tomography scans and classified them for task difficulty as easy, moderate, or hard. The performance of three open-source models-multi-organ objective segmentation (MOOSE), TotalSegmentator, and LungMask-was assessed using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), robust Hausdorff distance (rHd95), and normalized surface distance (NSD). Additionally, we trained, validated, and tested an nnU-Net model using our local dataset and compared its performance with that of the other software on the test subset. All models were evaluated for generalizability using an external competition (LOLA11, n = 55). RESULTS: TotalSegmentator outperformed MOOSE in DSC and NSD across all difficulty levels (p < 0.001), but not in rHd95 (p = 1.000). MOOSE and TotalSegmentator surpassed LungMask across metrics and difficulty classes (p < 0.001). Our model exceeded all other models on the internal dataset (n = 33) in all metrics, across all difficulty classes (p < 0.001), and on the external dataset. Missing lobes were correctly identified only by our model and LungMask in 3 and 1 of 7 cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Open-source segmentation tools perform well in straightforward cases but struggle in unfamiliar, complex cases. Training on diverse, specialized datasets can improve generalizability, emphasizing representative data over sheer quantity. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Training lung lobe segmentation models on a local variety of cases improves accuracy, thus enhancing presurgical planning, ventilation-perfusion analysis, and disease localization, potentially impacting treatment decisions and patient outcomes in respiratory and thoracic care. KEY POINTS: Deep learning models trained on non-specialized datasets struggle with complex lung anomalies, yet their real-world limitations are insufficiently assessed. Training an identical model on a smaller yet clinically diverse and representative cohort improved performance in challenging cases. Data diversity outweighs the quantity in deep learning-based segmentation models. Accurate lung lobe segmentation may enhance presurgical assessment of lung lobar ventilation and perfusion function, optimizing clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it