ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2019
Automated fiber tract reconstruction for surgery planning: Extensive validation in language-related white matter tracts.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of automated methods to perform white matter tract segmentation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Mapping and anatomo-surgical techniques for language preservation in brain tumours (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating Unimodal and Multimodal Tracking Strategies for the Reconstruction of Language-related White Matter Tracts.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- CNNT-Net: a novel deep learning-based framework for estimating high-quality fiber orientation distributions from single-shell dMRI.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A Riemannian framework for incorporating white matter bundle prior in orientation distribution function based tractography algorithms.PloS one · 2025Article
- Naming fMRI-guided white matter language tract volumes influence naming decline after temporal lobe resection.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Contribution of White Matter Fiber Bundle Damage to Language Change After Surgery for Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.Neurology · 2023Article
- Prediction of the Topography of the Corticospinal Tract on T1-Weighted MR Images Using Deep-Learning-Based Segmentation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Reproducibility of MRI-based white matter tract estimation using multi-fiber probabilistic tractography: effect of user-defined parameters and regions.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Informative and Reliable Tract Segmentation for Preoperative Planning.Frontiers in radiology · 2022Article
- Decoupling of functional and structural language networks in temporal lobe epilepsy.Epilepsia · 2021Article
- Article
- Ventralis intermedius nucleus anatomical variability assessment by MRI structural connectivity.NeuroImage · 2021Article
- Tractography and the connectome in neurosurgical treatment of gliomas: the premise, the progress, and the potential.Neurosurgical focus · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diffusion MRI and tractography hold great potential for surgery planning, especially to preserve eloquent white matter during resections. However, fiber tract reconstruction requires an expert with detailed understanding of neuroanatomy. Several automated approaches have been proposed, using different strategies to reconstruct the white matter tracts in a supervised fashion. However, validation is often limited to comparison with manual delineation by overlap-based measures, which is limited in characterizing morphological and topological differences. In this work, we set up a fully automated pipeline based on anatomical criteria that does not require manual intervention, taking advantage of atlas-based criteria and advanced acquisition protocols available on clinical-grade MRI scanners. Then, we extensively validated it on epilepsy patients with specific focus on language-related bundles. The validation procedure encompasses different approaches, including simple overlap with manual segmentations from two experts, feasibility ratings from external multiple clinical raters and relation with task-based functional MRI. Overall, our results demonstrate good quantitative agreement between automated and manual segmentation, in most cases better performances of the proposed method in qualitative terms, and meaningful relationships with task-based fMRI. In addition, we observed significant differences between experts in terms of both manual segmentation and external ratings. These results offer important insights on how different levels of validation complement each other, supporting the idea that overlap-based measures, although quantitative, do not offer a full perspective on the similarities and differences between automated and manual methods.
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.