Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33505231›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2020

Deep Network for the Automatic Segmentation and Quantification of Intracranial Hemorrhage on CT.

Jun Xu, Rongguo Zhang, Zijian Zhou, Chunxue Wu, Qiang Gong, Huiling Zhang, Shuang Wu, Gang Wu, Yufeng Deng, Chen Xia and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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. A revolutionary acute subdural hematoma detection based on two-tiered artificial intelligence model.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023
    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.

Jun XuDepartment of Radiology, QingPu Branch of Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Rongguo ZhangBeijing Infervision Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Zijian ZhouBeijing Infervision Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Chunxue WuDepartment of Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qiang GongBeijing Infervision Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Huiling ZhangBeijing Infervision Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Shuang WuBeijing Infervision Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Gang WuDepartment of Radiology, QingPu Branch of Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yufeng DengBeijing Infervision Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Chen XiaBeijing Infervision Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Jun MaDepartment of Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ABC/2 method is usually applied to evaluate intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume on computed tomography (CT), although it might be inaccurate and not applicable in estimating extradural or subdural hemorrhage (EDH, SDH) volume due to their irregular hematoma shapes. This study aimed to evaluate deep framework optimized for the segmentation and quantification of ICH, EDH, and SDH.

methodsThe training datasets were 3,000 images retrospectively collected from a collaborating hospital (Hospital A) and segmented by the Dense U-Net framework. Three experienced radiologists determined the ground truth by marking the pixels as hemorrhage area. We utilized the Dice and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) to test the reliability of the ground truth. Moreover, the testing datasets consisted of 211 images (internal test) from Hospital A, and 86 ICH images (external test) from another hospital (Hospital B). In this study, we chose scatter plots, ICC, and Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) with ground truth to evaluate the performance of the deep framework. Furthermore, to validate the effectiveness of the deep framework, we did a comparative analysis of the hemorrhage volume estimation between the deep model and the ABC/2 method.

resultsThe high Dice (0.89-0.95) and ICC (0.985-0.997) showed the consistency of the manual segmentations among the radiologists and the reliability of the ground truth. For the internal test, the Dice coefficients of ICH, EDH, and SDH were 0.90 ± 0.06, 0.88 ± 0.12, and 0.82 ± 0.16, respectively. For the external test, the segmentation Dice was 0.86 ± 0.09. Comparatively, the ICC and PCC of ICH volume estimations were 0.99 performed by Dense U-Net that overmatched the ABC/2 method.

conclusionThis study revealed the excellent performance of hematoma segmentation and volume evaluation based on Dense U-Net, which indicated our deep framework might contribute to efficiently developing treatment strategies for intracranial hemorrhage in clinics.

Indexed as

CTdeep learningintracranial hemorrhagequantificationsegmentation

Identifiers

PMID33505231
PMCPMC7832216

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.