ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Development and validation of deep learning-based automatic brain segmentation for East Asians: A comparison with Freesurfer.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. 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.
- Baseline cortical thinning in the visual cortex as a predictor of early mild cognitive impairment progression: a population-based follow-up study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and validate deep learning-based automatic brain segmentation for East Asians with comparison to data for healthy controls from Freesurfer based on a ground truth. Methods: A total of 30 healthy participants were enrolled and underwent T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using a 3-tesla MRI system. Our Neuro I software was developed based on a three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (CNNs)-based, deep-learning algorithm, which was trained using data for 776 healthy Koreans with normal cognition. Dice coefficient (D) was calculated for each brain segment and compared with control data by paired Results: The D values obtained from Freesurfer (ver6.0) were significantly lower than those from Neuro I. The histogram of the Freesurfer results showed remarkable differences in the distribution of D values from Neuro I. Overall, D values obtained by Freesurfer and Neuro I showed positive correlations, but the slopes and intercepts were significantly different. It was showed the largest effect sizes ranged 1.07-3.22, and ICC also showed significantly poor to moderate correlations between the two methods (0.498 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.688). For Neuro I, D values resulted in reduced residuals when fitting data to a line of best fit, and indicated consistent values corresponding to each age, even in young and older adults. Conclusion: Freesurfer and Neuro I were not equivalent when compared to a ground truth, where Neuro I exhibited higher performance. We suggest that Neuro I is a useful alternative for the assessment of the brain volume.
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.