# Suggestions on best workaround for poor data set

**URL:** <https://discourse.slicer.org/t/suggestions-on-best-workaround-for-poor-data-set/46050>\
**Category:** Support\
**Created:** [February 4, 2026, 2:36am UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/suggestions-on-best-workaround-for-poor-data-set/46050 "2026-02-04T02:36:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Learn34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Learn34](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/Learn34)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 2:36am UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/suggestions-on-best-workaround-for-poor-data-set/46050/1 "2026-02-04T02:36:02Z")

</div>

While I’m now attempting to follow the workflow described in [this paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19664-6), I’m still stymied by the poor fitness of my baseline dataset (a SPECT of my spine) for segmentation of soft tissue (or it may be a limitation of the [TotalSegmentator module](https://github.com/lassoan/SlicerTotalSegmentator). What suggestions to any of you have for filling in the missing intervertebral discs? Am I just stuck working to manually segment those structures slice by slice?

Example of both the dataset and segments attached.

 ![Example](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/uploads/slicer/original/3X/b/f/bfa7a4a9dbe5ed6973e6e19b4f1cc246f8313c7d.jpeg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![muratmaga](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/muratmaga/32/3622_2.png) [@muratmaga](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/muratmaga)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2026, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/suggestions-on-best-workaround-for-poor-data-set/46050/2 "2026-02-04T16:16:50Z")

</div>

> [@Learn34](#):
>
> for segmentation of soft tissue

There is no soft tissue visible in the image you shared. it is all noise.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cpinter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discourse.slicer.org/cpinter/32/7995_2.png) [@cpinter](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/cpinter)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2026, 9:20am UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/suggestions-on-best-workaround-for-poor-data-set/46050/3 "2026-02-05T09:20:56Z")

</div>

What is the scalar range of the volume? If you try optimizing window/level values can you achieve a less noisy visualization? The segmentation seems quite good to me btw.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Learn34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Learn34](https://discourse.slicer.org/u/Learn34)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2026, 2:01am UTC](https://discourse.slicer.org/t/suggestions-on-best-workaround-for-poor-data-set/46050/4 "2026-02-24T02:01:46Z")

</div>

Technically the volume ranges from -3024 to 2324, but checking the histogram the practical range is approximately from -1035 to 2110. I’ll keep playing with the window/level values, but so far I’m not having luck improving the contrast between the IVDs and the adjacent soft tissue.