mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Tracked 3D Ultrasound and Deep Neural Network-based Thyroid Segmentation reduce Interobserver Variability in Thyroid Volumetry

arXiv 2108.10118 ↗First posted 10 Aug 2021cs.CV cs.LG cs.SDcited by 29

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Thyroid volumetry is crucial in diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of thyroid diseases. However, conventional thyroid volumetry with 2D ultrasound is highly operator-dependent. This study compares 2D ultrasound and tracked 3D ultrasound with an automatic thyroid segmentation based on a deep neural network regarding inter- and intraobserver variability, time and accuracy. Volume reference was MRI. Methods: 28 healthy volunteers were scanned with 2D and 3D ultrasound as well as by MRI. Three physicians (MD 1, 2, 3) with different levels of experience (6, 4 and 1 a) performed three 2D ultrasound and three tracked 3D ultrasound scans on each volunteer. In the 2D scans the thyroid lobe volumes were calculated with the ellipsoid formula. A convolutional deep neural network (CNN) segmented the 3D thyroid lobes automatically. On MRI (T1 VIBE sequence) the thyroid was manually segmented by an experienced medical doctor. Results: The CNN was trained to obtain a dice score of 0.94. The interobserver variability comparing two MDs showed mean differences for 2D and 3D respectively of 0.58 ml to 0.52 ml (MD1 vs. 2), -1.33 ml to -0.17 ml (MD1 vs. 3) and -1.89 ml to -0.70 ml (MD2 vs. 3). Paired samples t-tests showed significant differences in two comparisons for 2D and none for 3D. Intraobsever variability was similar for 2D and 3D ultrasound. Comparison of ultrasound volumes and MRI volumes by paired samples t-tests showed a significant difference for the 2D volumetry of all MDs, and no significant difference for 3D ultrasound. Acquisition time was significantly shorter for 3D ultrasound. Conclusion: Tracked 3D ultrasound combined with a CNN segmentation significantly reduces interobserver variability in thyroid volumetry and increases the accuracy of the measurements with shorter acquisition times.

Key facts. Cited by 29 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2021.

Builds on

2 of 35 references.

References · 2

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
  2. 2018QuickNAT: A Fully Convolutional Network for Quick and Accurate Segmentation of Neuroanatomycited by 37

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 7; 2024: 7; 2025: 8; 2026: 7.

29 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023ScribblePrompt: Fast and Flexible Interactive Segmentation for Any Biomedical Imagecited by 48
  2. 2025nnInteractive: Redefining 3D Promptable Segmentationcited by 41
  3. 2024Learning General-Purpose Biomedical Volume Representations using Randomized Synthesiscited by 29
  4. 2023Ultra-NeRF: Neural Radiance Fields for Ultrasound Imagingcited by 27
  5. 2024UltraSam: A Foundation Model for Ultrasound using Large Open-Access Segmentation Datasetscited by 24
  6. 2024Tyche: Stochastic In-Context Learning for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 20
  7. 2025USF-MAE: Ultrasound Self-Supervised Foundation Model with Masked Autoencodingcited by 16
  8. 2024MultiverSeg: Scalable Interactive Segmentation of Biomedical Imaging Datasets with In-Context Guidancecited by 13
  9. 2023S3M: Scalable Statistical Shape Modeling through Unsupervised Correspondencescited by 11
  10. 2024Diffusion as Sound Propagation: Physics-inspired Model for Ultrasound Image Generationcited by 10
  11. 2025U2-BENCH: Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Ultrasound Understandingcited by 10
  12. 2025MedicoSAM: Robust Improvement of SAM for Medical Imagingcited by 6
17 more
  1. 2023LOTUS: Learning to Optimize Task-based US representationscited by 4
  2. 2023HoloPOCUS: Portable Mixed-Reality 3D Ultrasound Tracking, Reconstruction and Overlaycited by 2
  3. 2023On the Localization of Ultrasound Image Slices within Point Distribution Modelscited by 2
  4. 2025The Missing Piece: A Case for Pre-Training in 3D Medical Object Detectioncited by 2
  5. 2025Comparing SAM 2 and SAM 3 for Zero-Shot Segmentation of 3D Medical Datacited by 2
  6. 2025UMind-VL: A Generalist Ultrasound Vision-Language Model for Unified Grounded Perception and Comprehensive Interpretationcited by 2
  7. 2026US-JEPA: A Joint Embedding Predictive Architecture for Ultrasoundcited by 2
  8. 2024Deep Spectral Methods for Unsupervised Ultrasound Image Interpretationcited by 1
  9. 2024PointVoxelFormer -- Reviving point cloud networks for 3D medical imagingcited by 1
  10. 2026UltraSAM3: A Concept-Driven Foundation Model for Universal Ultrasound Image Segmentationcited by 1
  11. 2026UltraG-Bench: A Multi-task Benchmark for assessing Large Vision-Language Models on Pixel-level Evidence Grounding in Ultrasoundcited by 1
  12. 2023Can ultrasound confidence maps predict sonographers' labeling variability?cited by 0
  13. 2025Pancakes: Consistent Multi-Protocol Image Segmentation Across Biomedical Domainscited by 0
  14. 2026A Unified Platform and Quality Assurance Framework for 3D Ultrasound Reconstruction with Robotic, Optical, and Electromagnetic Trackingcited by 0
  15. 2026UltraG-Ray: Physics-Based Gaussian Ray Casting for Novel Ultrasound View Synthesiscited by 0
  16. 2026SLIP: Segmentation with Low-latency Interactive Prompting for 3D Medical Imagescited by 0
  17. 2026Infrared Imaging Empowered by Artificial Intelligence for Pediatric Skeletal Triage: A Narrative Review and Future Perspectivescited by 0