ArticleScientific reports2023
Automated hippocampal segmentation algorithms evaluated in stroke patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning models of segmentation in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Pooled it
- Optimizing MRI sequence classification performance: insights from domain shift analysis.European radiology · 2025Article
- A Case for Automated Segmentation of MRI Data in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Type II GM1 Gangliosidosis.NeuroSci · 2025Article
- Intensity-Based Assessment of Hippocampal Segmentation Algorithms Using Paired Precontrast and Postcontrast MRI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Free-water: A promising structural biomarker for cognitive decline in aging and mild cognitive impairment.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning segmentation algorithms can produce reproducible results in a matter of seconds. However, their application to more complex datasets is uncertain and may fail in the presence of severe structural abnormalities-such as those commonly seen in stroke patients. In this investigation, six recent, deep learning-based hippocampal segmentation algorithms were tested on 641 stroke patients of a multicentric, open-source dataset ATLAS 2.0. The comparisons of the volumes showed that the methods are not interchangeable with concordance correlation coefficients from 0.266 to 0.816. While the segmentation algorithms demonstrated an overall good performance (volumetric similarity [VS] 0.816 to 0.972, DICE score 0.786 to 0.921, and Hausdorff distance [HD] 2.69 to 6.34), no single out-performing algorithm was identified: FastSurfer performed best in VS, QuickNat in DICE and average HD, and Hippodeep in HD. Segmentation performance was significantly lower for ipsilesional segmentation, with a decrease in performance as a function of lesion size due to the pathology-based domain shift. Only QuickNat showed a more robust performance in volumetric similarity. Even though there are many pre-trained segmentation methods, it is important to be aware of the possible decrease in performance for the segmentation results on the lesion side due to the pathology-based domain shift. The segmentation algorithm should be selected based on the research question and the evaluation parameter needed. More research is needed to improve current hippocampal segmentation methods.
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.