Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32534963›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2020

Accurate and robust whole-head segmentation from magnetic resonance images for individualized head modeling.

Oula Puonti, Koen Van Leemput, Guilherme B Saturnino, Hartwig R Siebner, Kristoffer H Madsen, Axel Thielscher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Multisession tDCS combined with intrastimulation training improves emotion recognition in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2024
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 2 mA is NOT 2 mA: Electric field variability in high-definition tDCS and its implications for precision neuromodulation in aging.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

50 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

6 authors.

Oula PuontiDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Koen Van LeemputDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, USA.
Guilherme B SaturninoDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Hartwig R SiebnerDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark; Institute for Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kristoffer H MadsenDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
Axel ThielscherDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Denmark; Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Electronic address: axelt@drcmr.dk.

Funding

Computational Imaging Biomarkers of Multiple SclerosisR01NS112161 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI VAN LEEMPUT, KOEN · 2019 to 2023
$1.5M
An open software solution to integrate non-invasive brain stimulation with functional imaging dataRF1MH117428 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI OPITZ, ALEXANDER · 2019 to 2019
$1.4M
NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH117428NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS112161
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial brain stimulation (TBS) has been established as a method for modulating and mapping the function of the human brain, and as a potential treatment tool in several brain disorders. Typically, the stimulation is applied using a one-size-fits-all approach with predetermined locations for the electrodes, in electric stimulation (TES), or the coil, in magnetic stimulation (TMS), which disregards anatomical variability between individuals. However, the induced electric field distribution in the head largely depends on anatomical features implying the need for individually tailored stimulation protocols for focal dosing. This requires detailed models of the individual head anatomy, combined with electric field simulations, to find an optimal stimulation protocol for a given cortical target. Considering the anatomical and functional complexity of different brain disorders and pathologies, it is crucial to account for the anatomical variability in order to translate TBS from a research tool into a viable option for treatment. In this article we present a new method, called CHARM, for automated segmentation of fifteen different head tissues from magnetic resonance (MR) scans. The new method compares favorably to two freely available software tools on a five-tissue segmentation task, while obtaining reasonable segmentation accuracy over all fifteen tissues. The method automatically adapts to variability in the input scans and can thus be directly applied to clinical or research scans acquired with different scanners, sequences or settings. We show that an increase in automated segmentation accuracy results in a lower relative error in electric field simulations when compared to anatomical head models constructed from reference segmentations. However, also the improved segmentations and, by implication, the electric field simulations are affected by systematic artifacts in the input MR scans. As long as the artifacts are unaccounted for, this can lead to local simulation differences up to 30% of the peak field strength on reference simulations. Finally, we exemplarily demonstrate the effect of including all fifteen tissue classes in the field simulations against the standard approach of using only five tissue classes and show that for specific stimulation configurations the local differences can reach 10% of the peak field strength.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedBrainBrain MappingComputer SimulationElectroencephalographyHeadHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetoencephalographyTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationElectroencephalographyHead segmentationMagnetoencephalographyMRINon-invasive brain stimulationVolume conductor modeling

Identifiers

PMID32534963
PMCPMC8048089

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.