Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35082608›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2021

Comparison of Two-Dimensional- and Three-Dimensional-Based U-Net Architectures for Brain Tissue Classification in One-Dimensional Brain CT.

Meera Srikrishna, Rolf A Heckemann, Joana B Pereira, Giovanni Volpe, Anna Zettergren, Silke Kern, Eric Westman, Ingmar Skoog, Michael Schöll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Meera SrikrishnaWallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Rolf A HeckemannDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Joana B PereiraDivision of Clinical Geriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Giovanni VolpeDepartment of Physics, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna ZettergrenNeuropsychiatric Epidemiology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Centre for Ageing and Health (AgeCap), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Silke KernNeuropsychiatric Epidemiology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Centre for Ageing and Health (AgeCap), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Eric WestmanDivision of Clinical Geriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ingmar SkoogNeuropsychiatric Epidemiology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Centre for Ageing and Health (AgeCap), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Michael SchöllWallenberg Centre for Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain tissue segmentation plays a crucial role in feature extraction, volumetric quantification, and morphometric analysis of brain scans. For the assessment of brain structure and integrity, CT is a non-invasive, cheaper, faster, and more widely available modality than MRI. However, the clinical application of CT is mostly limited to the visual assessment of brain integrity and exclusion of copathologies. We have previously developed two-dimensional (2D) deep learning-based segmentation networks that successfully classified brain tissue in head CT. Recently, deep learning-based MRI segmentation models successfully use patch-based three-dimensional (3D) segmentation networks. In this study, we aimed to develop patch-based 3D segmentation networks for CT brain tissue classification. Furthermore, we aimed to compare the performance of 2D- and 3D-based segmentation networks to perform brain tissue classification in anisotropic CT scans. For this purpose, we developed 2D and 3D U-Net-based deep learning models that were trained and validated on MR-derived segmentations from scans of 744 participants of the Gothenburg H70 Cohort with both CT and T1-weighted MRI scans acquired timely close to each other. Segmentation performance of both 2D and 3D models was evaluated on 234 unseen datasets using measures of distance, spatial similarity, and tissue volume. Single-task slice-wise processed 2D U-Nets performed better than multitask patch-based 3D U-Nets in CT brain tissue classification. These findings provide support to the use of 2D U-Nets to segment brain tissue in one-dimensional (1D) CT. This could increase the application of CT to detect brain abnormalities in clinical settings.

Indexed as

brain image segmentationconvolutional neural networksCTdeep learningMRI

Identifiers

PMID35082608
PMCPMC8784554

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.