Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37474622›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Automated hippocampal segmentation algorithms evaluated in stroke patients.

Marianne Schell, Martha Foltyn-Dumitru, Martin Bendszus, Philipp Vollmuth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marianne SchellDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Martha Foltyn-DumitruDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin BendszusDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp VollmuthDepartment of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. philipp.vollmuth@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsStrokeAwarenessHippocampusHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance Imaging

Identifiers

PMID37474622
PMCPMC10359355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.