Cited by 18Medical Imaging and AnalysisMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Automatic annotation of cervical vertebrae in videofluoroscopy images via deep learning

Open access
Zhang, Zhenwei, Mao, Shitong, Coyle, James, Sejdić, Ervin·2021·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

Judging swallowing kinematic impairments via videofluoroscopy represents the gold standard for the detection and evaluation of swallowing disorders. However, the efficiency and accuracy of such a biomechanical kinematic analysis vary significantly among human judges affected mainly by their training and experience. Here, we showed that a novel machine learning algorithm can with high accuracy automatically detect key anatomical points needed for a routine swallowing assessment in real-time. We trained a novel two-stage convolutional neural network to localize and measure the vertebral bodies using 1518 swallowing videofluoroscopies from 265 patients. Our network model yielded high accuracy as the mean distance between predicted points and annotations was 4.20 ± 5.54 pixels. In comparison, human inter-rater error was 4.35 ± 3.12 pixels. Furthermore, 93% of predicted points were less than five pixels from annotated pixels when tested on an independent dataset from 70 subjects. Our model offers more choices for speech language pathologists in their routine clinical swallowing assessments as it provides an efficient and accurate method for anatomic landmark localization in real-time, a task previously accomplished using an off-line time-sinking procedure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.media.2021.102218

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deep learning models such as U-Net and CNNs achieved F1 scores exceeding 0.9 and accuracy rates of 97.8% in detecting swallowing events and anatomical structures.

    “deep learning models like U-Net and CNNs have achieved performance metrics such as F1 scores exceeding 0.9 and accuracy rates of 97.8%, indicating their robustness in detecting swallowing events and anatomical structures.”

    From Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of dysphagia: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) reports that a two-stage convolutional neural network localized cervical vertebral landmarks in swallowing videos, supporting the anatomical-structure portion of the claim. It reports 93% of predicted points within five pixels of annotations, not an F1 score above 0.9 or 97.8% accuracy. The paper does not report U-Net performance or its model detecting swallowing events. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI-driven tools have potential to improve diagnostic accuracy for dysphagia.

    “These findings emphasize the potential of AI-driven tools in improving diagnostic accuracy for dysphagia(51,68,69,75).”
  • Support vector machines (SVM) and Mask-RCNN demonstrated high accuracy in classifying swallowing events, with sensitivity and specificity reaching over 90%.

    “Other methods, including support vector machines (SVM) and Mask-RCNN, have demonstrated high accuracy in classifying swallowing events, with metrics like sensitivity and specificity reaching over 90%.”

    From Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of dysphagia: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Abstract and Results describe a two-stage convolutional network that localizes cervical vertebrae in swallowing videos; the reported measures concern landmark location, not sensitivity or specificity for classifying swallowing events. Searches for SVM, Mask-RCNN, and sensitivity and specificity over 90% found no passage addressing that claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, Z., Mao, S., Coyle, J., & Sejdić, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Sejdić, Ervin
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
74
Pages
102218
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3195607837
Cited by
18
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01HD074819, R01HD092239)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
cervical vertebrae, videofluoroscopy, dysphagia, two-stage convolutional neural network, interobserver variability, real-time image analysis, speech-language pathology
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Algorithms, Cervical Vertebrae, Humans, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review