Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31727919›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Performance of five automated white matter hyperintensity segmentation methods in a multicenter dataset.

Rutger Heinen, Martijn D Steenwijk, Frederik Barkhof, J Matthijs Biesbroek, Wiesje M van der Flier, Hugo J Kuijf, Niels D Prins, Hugo Vrenken, Geert Jan Biessels, Jeroen de Bresser and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cerebral small vessel disease lesion segmentation methods: A systematic review.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Rutger HeinenDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. R.Heinen-2@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4094-7509
Martijn D SteenwijkDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Matthijs BiesbroekDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7017-2148
Wiesje M van der FlierAlzheimer Center & Department of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8766-6224
Hugo J KuijfImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Niels D PrinsAlzheimer Center & Department of Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hugo VrenkenDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geert Jan BiesselsDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6862-2496
Jeroen de BresserDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0759-8407
TRACE-VCI study group
Utrecht University · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLOLVG · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are a common manifestation of cerebral small vessel disease, that is increasingly studied with large, pooled multicenter datasets. This data pooling increases statistical power, but poses challenges for automated WMH segmentation. Although there is extensive literature on the evaluation of automated WMH segmentation methods, such evaluations in a multicenter setting are lacking. We performed WMH segmentations in sixty patients scanned on six different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners (10 patients per scanner) using five freely available and fully-automated WMH segmentation methods (Cascade, kNN-TTP, Lesion-TOADS, LST-LGA and LST-LPA). Different MRI scanner vendors and field strengths were included. We compared these automated WMH segmentations with manual WMH segmentations as a reference. Performance of each method both within and across scanners was assessed using spatial and volumetric correspondence with the reference segmentations by Dice's similarity coefficient (DSC) and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) respectively. We found the best performance, both within and across scanners, for kNN-TTP, followed by LST-LPA and LST-LGA, with worse performance for Lesion-TOADS and Cascade. Our findings can serve as a guide for choosing a method and also highlight the importance to further improve and evaluate consistency of methods in a multicenter setting.

Indexed as

AgedAlgorithmsAutomation, LaboratoryFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicWhite Matter

Identifiers

PMID31727919
PMCPMC6856351
OpenAlexW2985411656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.