Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27475911›Full record

ArticleMedical image analysis2017

ISLES 2015 - A public evaluation benchmark for ischemic stroke lesion segmentation from multispectral MRI.

Oskar Maier, Bjoern H Menze, Janina von der Gablentz, Levin Ḧani, Mattias P Heinrich, Matthias Liebrand, Stefan Winzeck, Abdul Basit, Paul Bentley, Liang Chen and 39 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical image analysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

111 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

49 authors.

Oskar MaierInstitut for Medical Informatics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Bjoern H Menze *Institute for Advanced Study and Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Janina von der GablentzDepartment of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Germany.
Levin ḦaniInstitute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Mattias P HeinrichInstitut for Medical Informatics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Matthias LiebrandDepartment of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Germany.
Stefan WinzeckInstitute for Advanced Study and Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Abdul BasitPakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Paul BentleyDivision of Brain Sciences, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, UK.
Liang ChenBiomedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK.
Daan ChristiaensESAT/PSI, Department of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Francis DutilUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada.
Karl EggerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany.
Chaolu FengCollege of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
Ben GlockerBiomedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK.
Michael GötzJunior Group Medical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tom HaeckESAT/PSI, Department of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Hanna-Leena HalmeHUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Mohammad HavaeiUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada.
Khan M IftekharuddinVision Lab, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Pierre-Marc JodoinUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada.
Konstantinos KamnitsasBiomedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK.
Elias KellnerDepartment of Radiology, Medical Physics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany.
Antti KorvenojaHUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Hugo LarochelleUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada.
Christian LedigBiomedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK.
Jia-Hong LeeGraduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Frederik MaesESAT/PSI, Department of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Qaiser MahmoodSignals and Systems, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Klaus H Maier-HeinJunior Group Medical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Richard McKinleyDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital Bern, Switzerland.
John MuschelliDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Chris PalEcole Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada.
Linmin PeiVision Lab, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Janaki Raman RangarajanESAT/PSI, Department of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Syed M S RezaVision Lab, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.
David RobbenESAT/PSI, Department of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Daniel RueckertBiomedical Image Analysis Group, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK.
Eero SalliHUS Medical Imaging Center, Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Paul SuetensESAT/PSI, Department of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Ching-Wei WangGraduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Matthias WilmsInstitut for Medical Informatics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Jan S KirschkeDepartment of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Ulrike M Kr AmerDepartment of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Germany.
Thomas F MünteDepartment of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Germany.
Peter SchrammInstitute of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Lübeck.
Roland WiestDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital Bern, Switzerland.
Heinz Handels *Institut for Medical Informatics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Mauricio Reyes *Institute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

Technological Assessment and Solutions Core - RC4P30AG021334 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Jeremy D Walston · 2003 to 2026
$33.2M
Quantitative imaging and molecular data modeling for brain tumor recurrence and progression analysisR01EB020683 · NIBIB · OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY · PI Khan M Iftekharuddin · 2016 to 2026
$3.2M
Multiresolution-fractal modeling for brain tumor detectionR15CA115464 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS · PI IFTEKHARUDDIN, KHAN M · 2010 to 2010
$473k
Department of Health II-LA-0814-20007NCI NIH HHS R15 CA115464NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021334NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020683
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ischemic stroke is the most common cerebrovascular disease, and its diagnosis, treatment, and study relies on non-invasive imaging. Algorithms for stroke lesion segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumes are intensely researched, but the reported results are largely incomparable due to different datasets and evaluation schemes. We approached this urgent problem of comparability with the Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation (ISLES) challenge organized in conjunction with the MICCAI 2015 conference. In this paper we propose a common evaluation framework, describe the publicly available datasets, and present the results of the two sub-challenges: Sub-Acute Stroke Lesion Segmentation (SISS) and Stroke Perfusion Estimation (SPES). A total of 16 research groups participated with a wide range of state-of-the-art automatic segmentation algorithms. A thorough analysis of the obtained data enables a critical evaluation of the current state-of-the-art, recommendations for further developments, and the identification of remaining challenges. The segmentation of acute perfusion lesions addressed in SPES was found to be feasible. However, algorithms applied to sub-acute lesion segmentation in SISS still lack accuracy. Overall, no algorithmic characteristic of any method was found to perform superior to the others. Instead, the characteristics of stroke lesion appearances, their evolution, and the observed challenges should be studied in detail. The annotated ISLES image datasets continue to be publicly available through an online evaluation system to serve as an ongoing benchmarking resource (www.isles-challenge.org).

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBenchmarkingHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingStrokeBenchmarkChallengeComparisonIschemic strokeMRISegmentation

Identifiers

PMID27475911
PMCPMC5099118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.