ArticleBiomedical engineering online2019
Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH): uncertainty quantification of geometric rupture risk parameters.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amplification of Secondary Flow at the Initiation Site of Intracranial Sidewall Aneurysms.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2025Article
- Is Accurate Lumen Segmentation More Important than Outlet Boundary Condition in Image-Based Blood Flow Simulations for Intracranial Aneurysms?Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2023Article
- Geometric uncertainty in intracranial aneurysm rupture status discrimination: a two-site retrospective study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)-phase II: rupture risk assessment.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
- Flow-splitting-based computation of outlet boundary conditions for improved cerebrovascular simulation in multiple intracranial aneurysms.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGeometric parameters have been proposed for prediction of cerebral aneurysm rupture risk. Predicting the rupture risk for incidentally detected unruptured aneurysms could help clinicians in their treatment decision. However, assessment of geometric parameters depends on several factors, including the spatial resolution of the imaging modality used and the chosen reconstruction procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate the uncertainty of a variety of previously proposed geometric parameters for rupture risk assessment, caused by variability of reconstruction procedures. MATERIALS: 26 research groups provided segmentations and surface reconstructions of five cerebral aneurysms as part of the Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge (MATCH) 2018. 40 dimensional and non-dimensional geometric parameters, describing aneurysm size, neck size, and irregularity of aneurysm shape, were computed. The medians as well as the absolute and relative uncertainties of the parameters were calculated. Additionally, linear regression analysis was performed on the absolute uncertainties and the median parameter values.
resultsA large variability of relative uncertainties in the range between 3.9 and 179.8% was found. Linear regression analysis indicates that some parameters capture similar geometric aspects. The lowest uncertainties < 6% were found for the non-dimensional parameters isoperimetric ratio, convexity ratio, and ellipticity index. Uncertainty of 2D and 3D size parameters was significantly higher than uncertainty of 1D parameters. The most extreme uncertainties > 80% were found for some curvature parameters.
conclusionsUncertainty analysis is essential on the road to clinical translation and use of rupture risk prediction models. Uncertainty quantification of geometric rupture risk parameters provided by this study may help support development of future rupture risk prediction models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.