ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2020
A fully automated pipeline for brain structure segmentation in multiple sclerosis.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Energy minimization segmentation model based on MRI images.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate volume measurements of the brain structures are important for treatment evaluation and disease follow-up in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. With the aim of obtaining reproducible measurements and avoiding the intra-/inter-rater variability that manual delineations introduce, several automated brain structure segmentation strategies have been proposed in recent years. However, most of these strategies tend to be affected by the abnormal MS lesion intensities, which corrupt the structure segmentation result. To address this problem, we recently reformulated two label fusion strategies of the state of the art, improving their segmentation performance on the lesion areas. Here, we integrate these reformulated strategies in a completely automated pipeline that includes pre-processing (inhomogeneity correction and intensity normalization), atlas selection, masked registration and label fusion, and combine them with an automated lesion segmentation method of the state of the art. We study the effect of automating the lesion mask acquisition on the structure segmentation result, analyzing the output of the proposed pipeline when used in combination with manually and automatically segmented lesion masks. We further analyze the effect of those masks on the segmentation result of the original label fusion strategies when combined with the well-established pre-processing step of lesion filling. The experiments performed show that, when the original methods are used to segment the lesion-filled images, significant structure volume differences are observed in a comparison between manually and automatically segmented lesion masks. The results indicate a mean volume decrease of 1.13%±1.93 in the cerebrospinal fluid, and a mean volume increase of 0.13%±0.14 and 0.05%±0.08 in the cerebral white matter and cerebellar gray matter, respectively. On the other hand, no significant volume differences were found when the proposed automated pipeline was used for segmentation, which demonstrates its robustness against variations in the lesion mask used.
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.