ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Segmentation of pre- and posttreatment diffuse glioma tissue subregions including resection cavities.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chinese expert concern and consensus on applications of artificial intelligence in clinical cancer imaging.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- The University of California San Diego Post-Treatment Glioblastoma (UCSD-PTGBM) annotated multimodal MRI Dataset.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and chordoma: A scoping review of the current landscape and future directions.Brain & spine · 2025Review
- Validation of open-source deep learning segmentation tools for automated glioma volumetry: a narrative review of Dice scores, workflow efficiency, and clinical RANO 2.0 implementation.Frontiers in neurologyReview
- Comparing the performance of dynamic susceptibility contrast and arterial spin labeling for detecting residual and recurrent glioblastoma with deep learning and multishell diffusion MRI.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
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
Background: Evaluating longitudinal changes in gliomas is a time-intensive process with significant interrater variability. Automated segmentation could reduce interrater variability and increase workflow efficiency for assessment of treatment response. We sought to evaluate whether neural networks would be comparable to expert assessment of pre- and posttreatment diffuse gliomas tissue subregions including resection cavities. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 647 MRIs of patients with diffuse gliomas (average 55.1 years; 29%/36%/34% female/male/unknown; 396 pretreatment and 251 posttreatment, median 237 days post-surgery) from 7 publicly available repositories in The Cancer Imaging Archive were split into training (536) and test/generalization (111) samples. T1, T1-post-contrast, T2, and FLAIR images were used as inputs into a 3D nnU-Net to predict 3 tumor subregions and resection cavities. We evaluated the performance of networks trained on pretreatment training cases (Pre-Rx network), posttreatment training cases (Post-Rx network), and both pre- and posttreatment cases (Combined networks). Results: Segmentation performance was as good as or better than interrater reliability with median dice scores for main tumor subregions ranging from 0.82 to 0.94 and strong correlations between manually segmented and predicted total lesion volumes (0.94 < Conclusions: Neural networks that accurately segment pre- and posttreatment diffuse gliomas have the potential to improve response assessment in clinical trials and reduce provider burden and errors in measurement.
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.