ArticleScientific reports2023
Deep learning-based automated lesion segmentation on mouse stroke magnetic resonance images.
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 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.
- A robust and reproducible automated MRI pipeline for quantifying tissue outcomes after experimental stroke in multi-center preclinical networks.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used for ischemic stroke lesion detection in mice. A challenge is that lesion segmentation often relies on manual tracing by trained experts, which is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to inter- and intra-rater variability. Here, we present a fully automated ischemic stroke lesion segmentation method for mouse T2-weighted MRI data. As an end-to-end deep learning approach, the automated lesion segmentation requires very little preprocessing and works directly on the raw MRI scans. We randomly split a large dataset of 382 MRI scans into a subset (n = 293) to train the automated lesion segmentation and a subset (n = 89) to evaluate its performance. We compared Dice coefficients and accuracy of lesion volume against manual segmentation, as well as its performance on an independent dataset from an open repository with different imaging characteristics. The automated lesion segmentation produced segmentation masks with a smooth, compact, and realistic appearance that are in high agreement with manual segmentation. We report dice scores higher than the agreement between two human raters reported in previous studies, highlighting the ability to remove individual human bias and standardize the process across research studies and centers.
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.