ArticleScientific reports2021
Spectroscopic and deep learning-based approaches to identify and quantify cerebral microhemorrhages.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Phasor Analysis for Digital Pathology: Quantitative Characterization of Liver Iron Overload.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2026Article
- Development of cerebral microhemorrhages in a mouse model of hypertension.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2025Article
- A Novel Detection and Classification Framework for Diagnosing of Cerebral Microbleeds Using Transformer and Language.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Semi-automated protocol to quantify and characterize fluorescent three-dimensional vascular images.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cerebral microhemorrhages (CMHs) are associated with cerebrovascular disease, cognitive impairment, and normal aging. One method to study CMHs is to analyze histological sections (5-40 μm) stained with Prussian blue. Currently, users manually and subjectively identify and quantify Prussian blue-stained regions of interest, which is prone to inter-individual variability and can lead to significant delays in data analysis. To improve this labor-intensive process, we developed and compared three digital pathology approaches to identify and quantify CMHs from Prussian blue-stained brain sections: (1) ratiometric analysis of RGB pixel values, (2) phasor analysis of RGB images, and (3) deep learning using a mask region-based convolutional neural network. We applied these approaches to a preclinical mouse model of inflammation-induced CMHs. One-hundred CMHs were imaged using a 20 × objective and RGB color camera. To determine the ground truth, four users independently annotated Prussian blue-labeled CMHs. The deep learning and ratiometric approaches performed better than the phasor analysis approach compared to the ground truth. The deep learning approach had the most precision of the three methods. The ratiometric approach has the most versatility and maintained accuracy, albeit with less precision. Our data suggest that implementing these methods to analyze CMH images can drastically increase the processing speed while maintaining precision and accuracy.
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.