ArticleMedical image analysis2024
Acquisition-invariant brain MRI segmentation with informative uncertainties.
Article in Medical image analysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitigating the Impact of MR Sequence Parameters: Increasing the Robustness of DL-Based Cortical Thickness Estimates.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- UltimateSynth: MRI Physics for Pan-Contrast AI.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Multi-scheme cross-level attention embedded U-shape transformer for MRI semantic segmentation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Informative and Reliable Tract Segmentation for Preoperative Planning.Frontiers in radiology · 2022Article
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
Abstract
Combining multi-site data can strengthen and uncover trends, but is a task that is marred by the influence of site-specific covariates that can bias the data and, therefore, any downstream analyses. Post-hoc multi-site correction methods exist but have strong assumptions that often do not hold in real-world scenarios. Algorithms should be designed in a way that can account for site-specific effects, such as those that arise from sequence parameter choices, and in instances where generalisation fails, should be able to identify such a failure by means of explicit uncertainty modelling. This body of work showcases such an algorithm that can become robust to the physics of acquisition in the context of segmentation tasks while simultaneously modelling uncertainty. We demonstrate that our method not only generalises to complete holdout datasets, preserving segmentation quality but does so while also accounting for site-specific sequence choices, which also allows it to perform as a harmonisation tool.
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.