Back

Automated Anatomy-Based Subsegmentation of Pelvic and Proximal Femoral CT: Validation Across Clinically Relevant Regions and Landmarks

Rashed, M.; Alabdulrahman, H.

2026-05-19 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.05.14.26353237 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Automated pelvic CT segmentation has advanced to reliable coarse bone extraction. Yet the structured anatomical hierarchy required for morphometry, fixation planning, bone quality mapping, and arthroplasty workflows remains unachieved. This study developed and validated a fully automated anatomy-informed pipeline that converts standard pelvic CT into a comprehensive, surgeon-readable subsegmentation of the pelvis and proximal femur. Methods Pelvic CT datasets were retrospectively collected from anonymized archives of hospitals affiliated with the Directorate of Health Affairs, Sharqia, Egypt. After eligibility screening, 757 normal adult cases were processed using a custom one-click 3D Slicer pipeline integrating TotalSegmentator for coarse extraction, followed by deterministic anatomy-based subsegmentation into 81 segments. One hundred randomly selected cases were validated against expert-corrected reference segmentations using Dice similarity coefficient, volume difference, surface distance metrics, and bilateral symmetry analysis. Results Of 1,316 screened cases, 757 met eligibility criteria. Across 8,100 case-segment observations, the pipeline achieved a mean Dice of 0.9926 +/- 0.0465. Complete agreement was observed for the sacrum, ilium, acetabulum, anterior and posterior columns, sciatic buttress, and all landmarks. Relative decreases were confined to boundary-dependent regions. Bilateral symmetry analysis confirmed a median surface agreement of 99.85% within 5 mm. Conclusion The pipeline demonstrated high accuracy and reproducibility across a large normal adult dataset, establishing a structured anatomical foundation for quantitative pelvic analysis and surgical planning workflows. Clinical feasibility across abnormal anatomy and decision-level applications awaits dedicated validation.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bone
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.7%
3
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
6
JBMR Plus
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
7
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
8
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
10
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.4%
13
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
14
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
15
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
17
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
18
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
23
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.7%
24
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%