ArticleScientific reports2022
A general skull stripping of multiparametric brain MRIs using 3D convolutional neural network.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical validation pipeline of a deep learning model for segmenting and quantifying intracranial and ventricular volumes on computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Radiomics and clinical data predict pseudoprogression after radiotherapy in high-grade glioma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- A lifespan-generalizable skull-stripping model for magnetic resonance images that leverages prior knowledge from brain atlases.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Longitudinal automated brain volumetry versus expert visual assessment of atrophy progression on MRI: an exploratory study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment using MRI analysis and machine learning algorithms.Discover applied sciences · 2025Article
- GOUHFI: A novel contrast- and resolution-agnostic segmentation tool for ultra-high-field MRI.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Focal cortical dysplasia (type II) detection with multi-modal MRI and a deep-learning framework.Npj imaging · 2024Article
- Uncertainty-aware deep-learning model for prediction of supratentorial hematoma expansion from admission non-contrast head computed tomography scan.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Automated, fast, robust brain extraction on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI in presence of brain tumors: an optimized model based on multi-center datasets.European radiology · 2024Article
- Dimensionality Reduction Hybrid U-Net for Brain Extraction in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Automatic analysis of skull thickness, scalp-to-cortex distance and association with age and sex in cognitively normal elderly.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate skull stripping facilitates following neuro-image analysis. For computer-aided methods, the presence of brain skull in structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) impacts brain tissue identification, which could result in serious misjudgments, specifically for patients with brain tumors. Though there are several existing works on skull stripping in literature, most of them either focus on healthy brain MRIs or only apply for a single image modality. These methods may be not optimal for multiparametric MRI scans. In the paper, we propose an ensemble neural network (EnNet), a 3D convolutional neural network (3DCNN) based method, for brain extraction on multiparametric MRI scans (mpMRIs). We comprehensively investigate the skull stripping performance by using the proposed method on a total of 15 image modality combinations. The comparison shows that utilizing all modalities provides the best performance on skull stripping. We have collected a retrospective dataset of 815 cases with/without glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). The ground truths of the skull stripping are verified by at least one qualified radiologist. The quantitative evaluation gives an average dice score coefficient and Hausdorff distance at the 95th percentile, respectively. We also compare the performance to the state-of-the-art methods/tools. The proposed method offers the best performance.The contributions of the work have five folds: first, the proposed method is a fully automatic end-to-end for skull stripping using a 3D deep learning method. Second, it is applicable for mpMRIs and is also easy to customize for any MRI modality combination. Third, the proposed method not only works for healthy brain mpMRIs but also pre-/post-operative brain mpMRIs with GBM. Fourth, the proposed method handles multicenter data. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first group to quantitatively compare the skull stripping performance using different modalities. All code and pre-trained model are available at: https://github.com/plmoer/skull_stripping_code_SR .
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.