ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Automatic Segmentation and Quantitative Assessment of Stroke Lesions on MR Images.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced Brain Stroke Lesion Segmentation in MRI Using a 2.5D Transformer Backbone U-Net Model.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring the Impact of Variability in Cell Segmentation and Tracking Approaches.Microscopy research and technique · 2025Article
- Segmentation of stroke lesions using transformers-augmented MRI analysis.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- How Do We Connect Brain Areas with Cognitive Functions? The Past, the Present and the Future.NeuroSci · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lesion studies are crucial in establishing brain-behavior relationships, and accurately segmenting the lesion represents the first step in achieving this. Manual lesion segmentation is the gold standard for chronic strokes. However, it is labor-intensive, subject to bias, and limits sample size. Therefore, our objective is to develop an automatic segmentation algorithm for chronic stroke lesions on T1-weighted MR images. Methods: To train our model, we utilized an open-source dataset: ATLAS v2.0 (Anatomical Tracings of Lesions After Stroke). We partitioned the dataset of 655 T1 images with manual segmentation labels into five subsets and performed a 5-fold cross-validation to avoid overfitting of the model. We used a deep neural network (DNN) architecture for model training. Results: To evaluate the model performance, we used three metrics that pertain to diverse aspects of volumetric segmentation, including shape, location, and size. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) compares the spatial overlap between manual and machine segmentation. The average DSC was 0.65 (0.61−0.67; 95% bootstrapped CI). Average symmetric surface distance (ASSD) measures contour distances between the two segmentations. ASSD between manual and automatic segmentation was 12 mm. Finally, we compared the total lesion volumes and the Pearson correlation coefficient (ρ) between the manual and automatically segmented lesion volumes, which was 0.97 (p-value < 0.001). Conclusions: We present the first automated segmentation model trained on a large multicentric dataset. This model will enable automated on-demand processing of MRI scans and quantitative chronic stroke lesion assessment.
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.