ReviewDigital health
Magnetic resonance image-based brain tumour segmentation methods: A systematic review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning for Automated Detection and Segmentation of Meningioma on Multiparametric MRI.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Deep learning segmentation of paediatric brain tumours using diffusion-weighted MRI: towards an early,Brain communications · 2026Article
- Clinical evaluation of two glioblastoma delineation methods based on neural networks.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking commercial depth sensors for intraoperative markerless registration in neurosurgery applications.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- Deep Learning Spinal Cord Segmentation Based on B0 Reference for Diffusion Tensor Imaging Analysis in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prognostic and predictive determinants in high-grade gliomas: integrating tumor-intrinsic biology with patient and system-level factors.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Article
- Health 4.0 in the medical sector: a narrative review.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Performance and Robustness of Regional Image Segmentation Driven by Selected Evolutionary and Genetic Algorithms: Study on MR Articular Cartilage Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A systematic review of deep learning-based segmentation techniques for brain tumor detection (2013-2023).Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Image segmentation is an essential step in the analysis and subsequent characterisation of brain tumours through magnetic resonance imaging. In the literature, segmentation methods are empowered by open-access magnetic resonance imaging datasets, such as the brain tumour segmentation dataset. Moreover, with the increased use of artificial intelligence methods in medical imaging, access to larger data repositories has become vital in method development. Purpose: To determine what automated brain tumour segmentation techniques can medical imaging specialists and clinicians use to identify tumour components, compared to manual segmentation. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of 572 brain tumour segmentation studies during 2015-2020. We reviewed segmentation techniques using T1-weighted, T2-weighted, gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, diffusion-weighted and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences. Moreover, we assessed physics or mathematics-based methods, deep learning methods, and software-based or semi-automatic methods, as applied to magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Particularly, we synthesised each method as per the utilised magnetic resonance imaging sequences, study population, technical approach (such as deep learning) and performance score measures (such as Dice score). Statistical tests: We compared median Dice score in segmenting the whole tumour, tumour core and enhanced tumour. Results: We found that T1-weighted, gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging are used the most in various segmentation algorithms. However, there is limited use of perfusion-weighted and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Moreover, we found that the U-Net deep learning technology is cited the most, and has high accuracy (Dice score 0.9) for magnetic resonance imaging-based brain tumour segmentation. Conclusion: U-Net is a promising deep learning technology for magnetic resonance imaging-based brain tumour segmentation. The community should be encouraged to contribute open-access datasets so training, testing and validation of deep learning algorithms can be improved, particularly for diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, where there are limited datasets available.
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.