ArticleBiomedicines2024
Transfer Learning Approaches for Brain Metastases Screenings.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Glioblastoma MRI Dataset with Standardized Preprocessing, Expert-Validated Segmentation, and MGMT Profiling.Scientific data · 2026Article
- On the fragility of neural architecture search: the role of overfitting and task complexity in medical image analysis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we examined the effectiveness of transfer learning in improving automatic segmentation of brain metastases on magnetic resonance imaging scans, with potential applications in preventive exams and remote diagnostics.
methodsWe trained three deep learning models on a public dataset from the ASNR-MICCAI Brain Metastasis Challenge 2024, fine-tuned them on a small private dataset, and compared their performance to models trained from scratch.
resultsResults showed that models using transfer learning performed better than scratch-trained models, though the improvement was not statistically substantial. The custom Tversky and Binary Cross-Entropy loss function helped manage class imbalance and reduce false negatives, limiting missed tumor regions. Medical experts noted that, while fine-tuned models worked well with larger, well-defined tumors, they struggled with tiny, scattered tumors in complex cases.
conclusionsThis study highlights the potential of transfer learning and tailored loss functions in medical imaging, while also pointing out the models' limitations in detecting very small tumors in challenging cases.
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.