The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Deep learning-enabled multi-organ segmentation in whole-body mouse scans
Open accessAbstract
Whole-body imaging of mice is a key source of information for research. Organ segmentation is a prerequisite for quantitative analysis but is a tedious and error-prone task if done manually. Here, we present a deep learning solution called AIMOS that automatically segments major organs (brain, lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bladder, stomach, intestine) and the skeleton in less than a second, orders of magnitude faster than prior algorithms. AIMOS matches or exceeds the segmentation quality of state-of-the-art approaches and of human experts. We exemplify direct applicability for biomedical research for localizing cancer metastases. Furthermore, we show that expert annotations are subject to human error and bias. As a consequence, we show that at least two independently created annotations are needed to assess model performance. Importantly, AIMOS addresses the issue of human bias by identifying the regions where humans are most likely to disagree, and thereby localizes and quantifies this uncertainty for improved downstream analysis. In summary, AIMOS is a powerful open-source tool to increase scalability, reduce bias, and foster reproducibility in many areas of biomedical research.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“In contrast to previous methods for whole-body analysis6,10,18, MouseMapper performs true 3D sliding-window inference on uncropped, multiterabyte datasets, rather than relying on 2D projections or precropped volumes, ensuring unbiased system-wide screening of anatomical changes for elongated structures.”
From A deep-learning framework reveals whole-body perturbations at cell level (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“Previous methods such as DeepMACT6 (tumour metastasis quantification in manually annotated organs), DELiVR7 (neuronal activation and microglial somata quantification and mapping in whole brain), AIMOS18 (segmentation of six organs for CT/LSFM) and SCP-Nano10 (nanocarrier targeted cell quantification in manually annotated organs) targeted a limited set of biological systems.”
From A deep-learning framework reveals whole-body perturbations at cell level (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 70 · Cited by 104
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Karssemeijer, N. In Biostereometrics 88 Vol. 1030 (eds Juerg, U., Baumann, R. & Herron, E.) 177–184 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, Bellingham, 1989).
Metadata
- Authors
- Schoppe, O., Pan, C., Coronel, J., Mai, H., Rong, Z., Todorov, M. I., Müskes, A., Navarro, F., Li, H., Ertürk, A., & Menze, B. H.
- Affiliations
- TUM Klinikum (DE)
- Helmholtz Munich (DE)
- Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien (DE)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Schoppe, Oliver
- Ertürk, Ali
- Menze, Bjoern H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Published
- 2020-11-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5626-5626
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7648799
- OpenAlex
- W3095440947
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 14
- FWCI
- 5.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Site cant be reached (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Software Campus initiative
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- multi-organ segmentation, deep learning segmentation, uncertainty quantification, reproducibility
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Algorithms, Animals, Animal Structures, Brain, Female, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Kidney, Liver, Lung, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Spleen, Reproducibility of Results, Mice, Whole Body Imaging, X-Ray Microtomography
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