ArticleFrontiers in radiology2024
Automated intracranial vessel segmentation of 4D flow MRI data in patients with atherosclerotic stenosis using a convolutional neural network.
Article in Frontiers in radiology, 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.
- Uncertainty-aware automated labeling of intracranial arteries using deep learning.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Quantifying physiological variability and improving reproducibility in 4D-flow MRI cerebrovascular measurements with self-supervised deep learning.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Repeatability and reproducibility of hemodynamic measurements by intracranial 4D Flow MRI: a multi‑vendor and multi‑software cross‑over comparison study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Non-invasive quantification of pressure drops in stenotic intracranial vessels: using deep learning-enhanced 4D flow MRI to characterize the regional haemodynamics of the pulsing brain.Interface focus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Intracranial 4D flow MRI enables quantitative assessment of hemodynamics in patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD). However, quantitative assessments are still challenging due to the time-consuming vessel segmentation, especially in the presence of stenoses, which can often result in user variability. To improve the reproducibility and robustness as well as to accelerate data analysis, we developed an accurate, fully automated segmentation for stenosed intracranial vessels using deep learning. Methods: 154 dual-VENC 4D flow MRI scans (68 ICAD patients with stenosis, 86 healthy controls) were retrospectively selected. Manual segmentations were used as ground truth for training. For automated segmentation, deep learning was performed using a 3D U-Net. 20 randomly selected cases (10 controls, 10 patients) were separated and solely used for testing. Cross-sectional areas and flow parameters were determined in the Circle of Willis (CoW) and the sinuses. Furthermore, the flow conservation error was calculated. For statistical comparisons, Dice scores (DS), Hausdorff distance (HD), average symmetrical surface distance (ASSD), Bland-Altman analyses, and interclass correlations were computed using the manual segmentations from two independent observers as reference. Finally, three stenosis cases were analyzed in more detail by comparing the 4D flow-based segmentations with segmentations from black blood vessel wall imaging (VWI). Results: Training of the network took approximately 10 h and the average automated segmentation time was 2.2 ± 1.0 s. No significant differences in segmentation performance relative to two independent observers were observed. For the controls, mean DS was 0.85 ± 0.03 for the CoW and 0.86 ± 0.06 for the sinuses. Mean HD was 7.2 ± 1.5 mm (CoW) and 6.6 ± 3.7 mm (sinuses). Mean ASSD was 0.15 ± 0.04 mm (CoW) and 0.22 ± 0.17 mm (sinuses). For the patients, the mean DS was 0.85 ± 0.04 (CoW) and 0.82 ± 0.07 (sinuses), the HD was 8.4 ± 3.1 mm (CoW) and 5.7 ± 1.9 mm (sinuses) and the mean ASSD was 0.22 ± 0.10 mm (CoW) and 0.22 ± 0.11 mm (sinuses). Small bias and limits of agreement were observed in both cohorts for the flow parameters. The assessment of the cross-sectional lumen areas in stenosed vessels revealed very good agreement (ICC: 0.93) with the VWI segmentation but a consistent overestimation (bias ± LOA: 28.1 ± 13.9%). Discussion: Deep learning was successfully applied for fully automated segmentation of stenosed intracranial vasculatures using 4D flow MRI data. The statistical analysis of segmentation and flow metrics demonstrated very good agreement between the CNN and manual segmentation and good performance in stenosed vessels. To further improve the performance and generalization, more ICAD segmentations as well as other intracranial vascular pathologies will be considered in the future.
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.