ArticleNeuroradiology2022
Variability assessment of manual segmentations of ischemic lesion volume on 24-h non-contrast CT.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue Is the Issue: A Systematic Review of Methods for the Determination of Infarct Volume in Acute Ischaemic Stroke.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Deep learning-based multimodal segmentation of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma on CT and MRI using self-configuring nnU-Net.European radiology · 2024Article
- How Do Quantitative Tissue Imaging Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Relate to Clinical Outcomes?Journal of stroke · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInfarct lesion volume (ILV) may serve as an imaging biomarker for clinical outcomes in the early post-treatment stage in patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of manual segmentation of ILV on follow-up non-contrast CT (NCCT) scans.
methodsFifty patients from the Prove-IT study were randomly selected for this analysis. Three raters manually segmented ILV on 24-h NCCT scans, slice by slice, three times. The reference standard for ILV was generated by the Simultaneous Truth And Performance Level estimation (STAPLE) algorithm. Intra- and inter-rater reliability was evaluated, using metrics of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) regarding lesion volume and the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC).
resultsMedian age of the 50 subjects included was 74.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 67-80), 54% were women, median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 18 (IQR 11-22), median baseline ASPECTS was 9 (IQR 6-10). The mean reference standard ILV was 92.5 ml (standard deviation (SD) ± 100.9 ml). The manually segmented ILV ranged from 88.2 ± 91.5 to 135.5 ± 119.9 ml (means referring to the variation between readers, SD within readers). Inter-rater ICC was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.76-0.88); intra-rater ICC ranged from 0.85 (95%CI: 0.72-0.92) to 0.95 (95%CI: 0.91-0.97). The mean DSC among the three readers ranged from 65.5 ± 22.9 to 76.4 ± 17.1% and the mean overall DSC was 72.8 ± 23.0%.
conclusionManual ILV measurements on follow-up CT scans are reliable to measure the radiological outcome despite some variability.
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.