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
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 9%
19.2%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 1%
15.6%
3
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
4
Bone
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
6
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.3%
7
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
8
JBMR Plus
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
9
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.2%
10
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
11
Frontiers in Endocrinology
58 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
12
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.5%
13
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.5%
14
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
16
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
17
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
18
Animals
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
19
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.1%
20
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.9%
21
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
22
Rheumatology
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
23
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
24
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
25
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%