ArticleJournal of neurointerventional surgery2024
Random expert sampling for deep learning segmentation of acute ischemic stroke on non-contrast CT.
Article in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing deep learning stroke segmentation in NCCT, CTA, and CTP: Accuracy, domain transfer, and temporal sampling effect.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Current State of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Stroke: A Literature Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Robust slice-level stroke classification in non-contrast head CT via structural consistency regularization and counterfactual suppression.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Integrating convolutional and transformer networks for precise diagnosis of watershed and hemorrhagic stroke.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clearance rate of contrast extravasation after endovascular therapy is associated with functional outcome and mediated by cerebral edema.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2025Article
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Scoping Review.Neurointervention · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOutlining acutely infarcted tissue on non-contrast CT is a challenging task for which human inter-reader agreement is limited. We explored two different methods for training a supervised deep learning algorithm: one that used a segmentation defined by majority vote among experts and another that trained randomly on separate individual expert segmentations.
methodsThe data set consisted of 260 non-contrast CT studies in 233 patients with acute ischemic stroke recruited from the multicenter DEFUSE 3 (Endovascular Therapy Following Imaging Evaluation for Ischemic Stroke 3) trial. Additional external validation was performed using 33 patients with matched stroke onset times from the University Hospital Lausanne. A benchmark U-Net was trained on the reference annotations of three experienced neuroradiologists to segment ischemic brain tissue using majority vote and random expert sampling training schemes. The median of volume, overlap, and distance segmentation metrics were determined for agreement in lesion segmentations between (1) three experts, (2) the majority model and each expert, and (3) the random model and each expert. The two sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare performances (1) to 2) and (1) to (3). We further compared volumes with the 24 hour follow-up diffusion weighted imaging (DWI, final infarct core) and correlations with clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days) with the Spearman method.
resultsThe random model outperformed the inter-expert agreement ((1) to (2)) and the majority model ((1) to (3)) (dice 0.51±0.04 vs 0.36±0.05 (P
conclusionThe random model for ischemic injury delineation on non-contrast CT surpassed the inter-expert agreement ((1) to (2)) and the performance of the majority model ((1) to (3)). We showed that the random model volumetric measures of the model were consistent with 24 hour follow-up DWI.
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.