ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Assessing robustness and generalization of a deep neural network for brain MS lesion segmentation on real-world data.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate the performance of a deep learning (DL)-based model for multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion segmentation and compare it to other DL and non-DL algorithms.
methodsThis ambispective, multicenter study assessed the performance of a DL-based model for MS lesion segmentation and compared it to alternative DL- and non-DL-based methods. Models were tested on internal (n = 20) and external (n = 18) datasets from Latin America, and on an external dataset from Europe (n = 49). We also examined robustness by rescanning six patients (n = 6) from our MS clinical cohort. Moreover, we studied inter-human annotator agreement and discussed our findings in light of these results. Performance and robustness were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Dice coefficient (DC), and coefficient of variation (CV).
resultsInter-human ICC ranged from 0.89 to 0.95, while spatial agreement among annotators showed a median DC of 0.63. Using expert manual segmentations as ground truth, our DL model achieved a median DC of 0.73 on the internal, 0.66 on the external, and 0.70 on the challenge datasets. The performance of our DL model exceeded that of the alternative algorithms on all datasets. In the robustness experiment, our DL model also achieved higher DC (ranging from 0.82 to 0.90) and lower CV (ranging from 0.7 to 7.9%) when compared to the alternative methods.
conclusionOur DL-based model outperformed alternative methods for brain MS lesion segmentation. The model also proved to generalize well on unseen data and has a robust performance and low processing times both on real-world and challenge-based data. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our DL-based model demonstrated superior performance in accurately segmenting brain MS lesions compared to alternative methods, indicating its potential for clinical application with improved accuracy, robustness, and efficiency. KEY POINTS: • Automated lesion load quantification in MS patients is valuable; however, more accurate methods are still necessary. • A novel deep learning model outperformed alternative MS lesion segmentation methods on multisite datasets. • Deep learning models are particularly suitable for MS lesion segmentation in clinical scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37650967What 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.