Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32676869›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2020

Manual segmentation versus semi-automated segmentation for quantifying vestibular schwannoma volume on MRI.

Hari McGrath, Peichao Li, Reuben Dorent, Robert Bradford, Shakeel Saeed, Sotirios Bisdas, Sebastien Ourselin, Jonathan Shapey, Tom Vercauteren

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Hari McGrathGKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, London, UK. hari.mcgrath@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0037-4761
Peichao LiSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Reuben DorentSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Robert BradfordQueen Square Radiosurgery Centre (Gamma Knife), National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Shakeel SaeedDepartment of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Sotirios BisdasNeuroradiology Department, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Sebastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Jonathan ShapeySchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Tom VercauterenSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (GB) 203145Z/16/ZWellcome Trust (GB) 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeManagement of vestibular schwannoma (VS) is based on tumour size as observed on T1 MRI scans with contrast agent injection. The current clinical practice is to measure the diameter of the tumour in its largest dimension. It has been shown that volumetric measurement is more accurate and more reliable as a measure of VS size. The reference approach to achieve such volumetry is to manually segment the tumour, which is a time intensive task. We suggest that semi-automated segmentation may be a clinically applicable solution to this problem and that it could replace linear measurements as the clinical standard.

methodsUsing high-quality software available for academic purposes, we ran a comparative study of manual versus semi-automated segmentation of VS on MRI with 5 clinicians and scientists. We gathered both quantitative and qualitative data to compare the two approaches; including segmentation time, segmentation effort and segmentation accuracy.

resultsWe found that the selected semi-automated segmentation approach is significantly faster (167 s vs 479 s, [Formula: see text]), less temporally and physically demanding and has approximately equal performance when compared with manual segmentation, with some improvements in accuracy. There were some limitations, including algorithmic unpredictability and error, which produced more frustration and increased mental effort in comparison with manual segmentation.

conclusionWe suggest that semi-automated segmentation could be applied clinically for volumetric measurement of VS on MRI. In future, the generic software could be refined for use specifically for VS segmentation, thereby improving accuracy.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingPattern Recognition, AutomatedAlgorithmsAutomationContrast MediaDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeurilemmomaNeuroimagingNeuroma, AcousticReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareContrast MediaImagingMachine learningNeuroimagingSegmentationVestibular schwannoma

Identifiers

PMID32676869
PMCPMC7419453

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.