Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090435›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024

Challenges with segmenting intraoperative ultrasound for brain tumours.

Alistair Weld, Luke Dixon, Giulio Anichini, Neekhil Patel, Amr Nimer, Michael Dyck, Kevin O'Neill, Adrian Lim, Stamatia Giannarou, Sophie Camp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Patient-Specific Real-Time Segmentation in Trackerless Brain Ultrasound.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alistair Weld *Hamlyn Centre, Imperial College London, Exhibition Rd, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. a.weld20@imperial.ac.uk.
Luke Dixon *Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, London, W6 8RF, UK.
Giulio Anichini *Department of Neurosurgery, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, W6 8RF, London, UK.
Neekhil PatelDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, W6 8RF, London, UK.
Amr NimerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, W6 8RF, London, UK.
Michael DyckSchool of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 3, Garching, 85748, Germany.
Kevin O'NeillDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, W6 8RF, London, UK.
Adrian LimDepartment of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, London, W6 8RF, UK.
Stamatia GiannarouHamlyn Centre, Imperial College London, Exhibition Rd, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Sophie CampDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Rd, W6 8RF, London, UK.

Funding

Royal Society (URFR2 01014])UK Research and Innovation EP/S023283/1)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective - Addressing the challenges that come with identifying and delineating brain tumours in intraoperative ultrasound. Our goal is to both qualitatively and quantitatively assess the interobserver variation, amongst experienced neuro-oncological intraoperative ultrasound users (neurosurgeons and neuroradiologists), in detecting and segmenting brain tumours on ultrasound. We then propose that, due to the inherent challenges of this task, annotation by localisation of the entire tumour mass with a bounding box could serve as an ancillary solution to segmentation for clinical training, encompassing margin uncertainty and the curation of large datasets. Methods - 30 ultrasound images of brain lesions in 30 patients were annotated by 4 annotators - 1 neuroradiologist and 3 neurosurgeons. The annotation variation of the 3 neurosurgeons was first measured, and then the annotations of each neurosurgeon were individually compared to the neuroradiologist's, which served as a reference standard as their segmentations were further refined by cross-reference to the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The following statistical metrics were used: Intersection Over Union (IoU), Sørensen-Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff Distance (HD). These annotations were then converted into bounding boxes for the same evaluation. Results - There was a moderate level of interobserver variance between the neurosurgeons

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeurosurgeonsNeurosurgical ProceduresObserver VariationUltrasonographyIntraoperative ultrasoundSegmentationTumour margin uncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39090435
PMCPMC11294268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.