Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31403237›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2019

Automated brain extraction of multisequence MRI using artificial neural networks.

Fabian Isensee, Marianne Schell, Irada Pflueger, Gianluca Brugnara, David Bonekamp, Ulf Neuberger, Antje Wick, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Sabine Heiland, Wolfgang Wick and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 364 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
364citing papers in PubMed
–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

364 citing papers in PubMed.

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

304 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

13 authors.

Fabian IsenseeMedical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Marianne SchellDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Irada PfluegerDepartment of Radiology, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
Gianluca BrugnaraDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
David BonekampDepartment of Radiology, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ulf NeubergerDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Antje WickNeurology Clinic, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerDepartment of Radiology, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sabine HeilandDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Wolfgang WickNeurology Clinic, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin BendszusDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Klaus H Maier-HeinMedical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp KickingerederDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6224-0064

Funding

Else Kröner-Fresenius FoundationMedical Faculty Heidelberg Postdoc-Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain extraction is a critical preprocessing step in the analysis of neuroimaging studies conducted with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and influences the accuracy of downstream analyses. The majority of brain extraction algorithms are, however, optimized for processing healthy brains and thus frequently fail in the presence of pathologically altered brain or when applied to heterogeneous MRI datasets. Here we introduce a new, rigorously validated algorithm (termed HD-BET) relying on artificial neural networks that aim to overcome these limitations. We demonstrate that HD-BET outperforms six popular, publicly available brain extraction algorithms in several large-scale neuroimaging datasets, including one from a prospective multicentric trial in neuro-oncology, yielding state-of-the-art performance with median improvements of +1.16 to +2.50 points for the Dice coefficient and -0.66 to -2.51 mm for the Hausdorff distance. Importantly, the HD-BET algorithm, which shows robust performance in the presence of pathology or treatment-induced tissue alterations, is applicable to a broad range of MRI sequence types and is not influenced by variations in MRI hardware and acquisition parameters encountered in both research and clinical practice. For broader accessibility, the HD-BET prediction algorithm is made freely available (www.neuroAI-HD.org) and may become an essential component for robust, automated, high-throughput processing of MRI neuroimaging data.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsBrainHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeuroimagingartificial neural networksbrain extractiondeep learningmagnetic resonance imagingneuroimagingskull stripping

Identifiers

PMID31403237
PMCPMC6865732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.