ArticleNeuroinformatics2021
Generating Longitudinal Atrophy Evaluation Datasets on Brain Magnetic Resonance Images Using Convolutional Neural Networks and Segmentation Priors.
Article in Neuroinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fast surface reconstruction of human brain MRI: benchmarking deep-learning based morphometry tools.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Forecasting individualized progression of Alzheimer's disease using structural MRI and population spatiotemporal priors.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Synthetic data in generalizable, learning-based neuroimaging.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Application of artificial intelligence-based magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of cerebral small vessel disease.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Review
- The role of generative adversarial networks in brain MRI: a scoping review.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Synthetic Atrophy for Longitudinal Cortical Surface Analyses.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2022Article
- The Detection of Thread Roll's Margin Based on Computer Vision.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain atrophy quantification plays a fundamental role in neuroinformatics since it permits studying brain development and neurological disorders. However, the lack of a ground truth prevents testing the accuracy of longitudinal atrophy quantification methods. We propose a deep learning framework to generate longitudinal datasets by deforming T1-w brain magnetic resonance imaging scans as requested through segmentation maps. Our proposal incorporates a cascaded multi-path U-Net optimised with a multi-objective loss which allows its paths to generate different brain regions accurately. We provided our model with baseline scans and real follow-up segmentation maps from two longitudinal datasets, ADNI and OASIS, and observed that our framework could produce synthetic follow-up scans that matched the real ones (Total scans= 584; Median absolute error: 0.03 ± 0.02; Structural similarity index: 0.98 ± 0.02; Dice similarity coefficient: 0.95 ± 0.02; Percentage of brain volume change: 0.24 ± 0.16; Jacobian integration: 1.13 ± 0.05). Compared to two relevant works generating brain lesions using U-Nets and conditional generative adversarial networks (CGAN), our proposal outperformed them significantly in most cases (p < 0.01), except in the delineation of brain edges where the CGAN took the lead (Jacobian integration: Ours - 1.13 ± 0.05 vs CGAN - 1.00 ± 0.02; p < 0.01). We examined whether changes induced with our framework were detected by FAST, SPM, SIENA, SIENAX, and the Jacobian integration method. We observed that induced and detected changes were highly correlated (Adj. R
Indexed as
Identifiers
33389607What 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.