ArticleClinical neuroradiology2024
Clinical Use of Hematoma Volume Based On Automated Segmentation of Chronic Subdural Hematoma Using 3D U-Net.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic Subdural Hematoma Segmentation: A Dedicated Model to Overcome the Limitations of Acute Hemorrhage Segmentation Across Chronic Subdural Hematoma Subtypes and Density Variations.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Volumetric predictors of recurrence in chronic subdural hematomas: surgical technique comparison and 3D slicer-assisted volumetric analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo propose a method for calculating hematoma volume based on automatic segmentation of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) using 3D U‑net and investigate whether it can be used clinically to predict recurrence.
methodsHematoma volumes manually measured from pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) images were used as ground truth data to train 3D U‑net in 200 patients (400 CT scans). A total of 215 patients (430 CT scans) were used as test data to output segmentation results from the trained 3D U‑net model. The similarity with the ground truth data was evaluated using Dice scores for pre and postoperative separately. The recurrence prediction accuracy was evaluated by obtaining receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the segmentation results. Using a typical mobile PC, the computation time per case was measured and the average time was calculated.
resultsThe median Dice score of the test data were preoperative hematoma volume (Pre-HV): 0.764 and postoperative subdural cavity volume (Post-SCV): 0.741. In ROC analyses assessing recurrence prediction, the area under the curve (AUC) of the manual was 0.755 in Pre-HV, whereas the 3D U‑net was 0.735. In Post-SCV, the manual AUC was 0.779; the 3D U‑net was 0.736. No significant differences were found between manual and 3D U‑net for all results. Using a mobile PC, the average time taken to output the test data results was 30 s per case.
conclusionThe proposed method is a simple, accurate, and clinically applicable; it can contribute to the widespread use of recurrence prediction scoring systems for CSDH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38814451What 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.