Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39483281›Full record

ArticleNeuroSci2024

A Practical Guide to Manual and Semi-Automated Neurosurgical Brain Lesion Segmentation.

Raunak Jain, Faith Lee, Nianhe Luo, Harpreet Hyare, Anand S Pandit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroSci, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Anatomic Interactive Atlas of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Raunak JainUCL Medical School, University College London, London WC1E 6DE, UK; raunak.jain.19@ucl.ac.uk (R.J.); faith.lee.18@ucl.ac.uk (F.L.); t.luo.17@ucl.ac.uk (N.L.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5813-5835
Faith LeeUCL Medical School, University College London, London WC1E 6DE, UK; raunak.jain.19@ucl.ac.uk (R.J.); faith.lee.18@ucl.ac.uk (F.L.); t.luo.17@ucl.ac.uk (N.L.).
Nianhe LuoUCL Medical School, University College London, London WC1E 6DE, UK; raunak.jain.19@ucl.ac.uk (R.J.); faith.lee.18@ucl.ac.uk (F.L.); t.luo.17@ucl.ac.uk (N.L.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2771-9416
Harpreet HyareLysholm Department of Neuroradiology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London WC1N 3BG, UK; h.hyare@ucl.ac.uk.
Anand S PanditVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London WC1N 3BG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4936-4916

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to provide a practical guide for manual and semi-automated image segmentation of common neurosurgical cranial lesions, namely meningioma, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), for neurosurgical trainees and researchers. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe medical images used were sourced from the Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interventions Society (MICCAI) Multimodal Brain Tumour Segmentation Challenge (BRATS) image database and from the local Picture Archival and Communication System (PACS) record with consent. Image pre-processing was carried out using MRIcron software (v1.0.20190902). ITK-SNAP (v3.8.0) was used in this guideline due to its availability and powerful built-in segmentation tools, although others (Seg3D, Freesurfer and 3D Slicer) are available. Quality control was achieved by employing expert segmenters to review.

resultsA pipeline was developed to demonstrate the pre-processing and manual and semi-automated segmentation of patient images for each cranial lesion, accompanied by image guidance and video recordings. Three sample segmentations were generated to illustrate potential challenges. Advice and solutions were provided within both text and video.

conclusionsSemi-automated segmentation methods enhance efficiency, increase reproducibility, and are suitable to be incorporated into future clinical practise. However, manual segmentation remains a highly effective technique in specific circumstances and provides initial training sets for the development of more advanced semi- and fully automated segmentation algorithms.

Indexed as

educationglioblastomameningiomaradiomicssegmentation

Identifiers

PMID39483281
PMCPMC11468002

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.