ArticleHeliyon2024
Development of a semi-automatic segmentation technique based on mean magnetic resonance imaging intensity thresholding for volumetric quantification of plexiform neurofibromas.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: Plexiform neurofibromas (PNs) are peripheral nerve tumors that occur in 25-50 % of patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. PNs may have complex, diffused, and irregular shapes. The objective of this work was to develop a volumetric quantification method for PNs as clinical assessment is currently based on unidimensional measurement. Materials and methods: A semi-automatic segmentation technique based on mean magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) intensity thresholding (SSTMean) was developed and compared to a similar and previously published technique based on minimum image intensity thresholding (SSTMini). The performance (volume and computation time) of the two techniques was compared to manual tracings of 15 tumors of different locations, shapes, and sizes. Performance was also assessed using different MRI sequences. Reproducibility was assessed by inter-observer analysis. Results: When compared to manual tracing, quantification performed with SSTMean was not significantly different (mean difference: 1.2 %), while volumes computed by SSTMini were significantly different (p < .0001, mean difference: 13.4 %). Volumes quantified by SSTMean were also significantly different than the ones assessed by SSTMini (p < .0001). Using SSTMean, volumes quantified with short TI inversion recovery, T1-, and T2-weighted imaging were not significantly different. Computation times used by SSTMean and SSTMini were significantly lower than for manual segmentation (p < .0001). The highest difference measured by two users was 8 cm Conclusion: Our method showed accuracy compared to a current gold standard (manual tracing) and reproducibility between users. The refined segmentation threshold and the possibility to define multiple regions-of-interest to initiate segmentation may have contributed to its performance. The versatility and speed of our method may prove useful to better monitor volumetric changes in lesions of patients enrolled in clinical trials to assessing response to therapy.
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.