Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39330751›Full record

ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2024

Repurposing the Public BraTS Dataset for Postoperative Brain Tumour Treatment Response Monitoring.

Peter Jagd Sørensen, Claes Nøhr Ladefoged, Vibeke Andrée Larsen, Flemming Littrup Andersen, Michael Bachmann Nielsen, Hans Skovgaard Poulsen, Jonathan Frederik Carlsen, Adam Espe Hansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI in Medical Imaging and Image Processing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Peter Jagd SørensenDepartment of Radiology, Centre of Diagnostic Investigation, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4998-8032
Claes Nøhr LadefogedDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Centre of Diagnostic Investigation, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Vibeke Andrée LarsenDepartment of Radiology, Centre of Diagnostic Investigation, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Flemming Littrup AndersenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2821-1849
Michael Bachmann NielsenDepartment of Radiology, Centre of Diagnostic Investigation, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hans Skovgaard PoulsenThe DCCC Brain Tumor Center, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jonathan Frederik CarlsenDepartment of Radiology, Centre of Diagnostic Investigation, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6724-7281
Adam Espe HansenDepartment of Radiology, Centre of Diagnostic Investigation, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6457-1537

Funding

Danish Cancer Society R295-A16770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge has been a main driver of the development of deep learning (DL) algorithms and provides by far the largest publicly available expert-annotated brain tumour dataset but contains solely preoperative examinations. The aim of our study was to facilitate the use of the BraTS dataset for training DL brain tumour segmentation algorithms for a postoperative setting. To this end, we introduced an automatic conversion of the three-label BraTS annotation protocol to a two-label annotation protocol suitable for postoperative brain tumour segmentation. To assess the viability of the label conversion, we trained a DL algorithm using both the three-label and the two-label annotation protocols. We assessed the models pre- and postoperatively and compared the performance with a state-of-the-art DL method. The DL algorithm trained using the BraTS three-label annotation misclassified parts of 10 out of 41 fluid-filled resection cavities in 72 postoperative glioblastoma MRIs, whereas the two-label model showed no such inaccuracies. The tumour segmentation performance of the two-label model both pre- and postoperatively was comparable to that of a state-of-the-art algorithm for tumour volumes larger than 1 cm

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrain NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingDatasets as TopicDeep LearningGlioblastomaHumansannotation protocolautomaticBrain Tumor Segmentation Challengebrain tumour segmentationBraTSdeep learning algorithmmagnetic resonance imagingMRIpostoperativetreatment monitoring

Identifiers

PMID39330751
PMCPMC11436089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.