ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
MR Image Fusion-Based Parotid Gland Tumor Detection.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The differentiation of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors is of major significance as it directly affects the treatment process. In addition, it is also a vital task in terms of early and accurate diagnosis of parotid gland tumors and the determination of treatment planning accordingly. As in other diseases, the differentiation of tumor types involves several challenging, time-consuming, and laborious processes. In the study, Magnetic Resonance (MR) images of 114 patients with parotid gland tumors are used for training and testing purposes by Image Fusion (IF). After the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC), Contrast-enhanced T1-w (T1C-w), and T2-w sequences are cropped, IF (ADC, T1C-w), IF (ADC, T2-w), IF (T1C-w, T2-w), and IF (ADC, T1C-w, T2-w) datasets are obtained for different combinations of these sequences using a two-dimensional Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT)-based fusion technique. For each of these four datasets, ResNet18, GoogLeNet, and DenseNet-201 architectures are trained separately, and thus, 12 models are obtained in the study. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) application that contains the most successful of these trained architectures for each data is also designed to support the users. The designed GUI application not only allows the fusing of different sequence images but also predicts whether the label of the fused image is benign or malignant. The results show that the DenseNet-201 models for IF (ADC, T1C-w), IF (ADC, T2-w), and IF (ADC, T1C-w, T2-w) are better than the others, with accuracies of 95.45%, 95.96%, and 92.93%, respectively. It is also noted in the study that the most successful model for IF (T1C-w, T2-w) is ResNet18, and its accuracy is equal to 94.95%.
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.