ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Deep-Learning-Based Thrombus Localization and Segmentation in Patients with Posterior Circulation Stroke.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Improved Detection Algorithm for Ischemic Stroke NCCT Based on YOLOv5.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thrombus volume in posterior circulation stroke (PCS) has been associated with outcome, through recanalization. Manual thrombus segmentation is impractical for large scale analysis of image characteristics. Hence, in this study we develop the first automatic method for thrombus localization and segmentation on CT in patients with PCS. In this multi-center retrospective study, 187 patients with PCS from the MR CLEAN Registry were included. We developed a convolutional neural network (CNN) that segments thrombi and restricts the volume-of-interest (VOI) to the brainstem (Polar-UNet). Furthermore, we reduced false positive localization by removing small-volume objects, referred to as volume-based removal (VBR). Polar-UNet is benchmarked against a CNN that does not restrict the VOI (BL-UNet). Performance metrics included the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) between automated and manually segmented thrombus volumes, the thrombus localization precision and recall, and the Dice coefficient. The majority of the thrombi were localized. Without VBR, Polar-UNet achieved a thrombus localization recall of 0.82, versus 0.78 achieved by BL-UNet. This high recall was accompanied by a low precision of 0.14 and 0.09. VBR improved precision to 0.65 and 0.56 for Polar-UNet and BL-UNet, respectively, with a small reduction in recall to 0.75 and 0.69. The Dice coefficient achieved by Polar-UNet was 0.44, versus 0.38 achieved by BL-UNet with VBR. Both methods achieved ICCs of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.27-0.54). Restricting the VOI to the brainstem improved the thrombus localization precision, recall, and segmentation overlap compared to the benchmark. VBR improved thrombus localization precision but lowered recall.
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.