ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Segmentation of glioblastomas via 3D FusionNet.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study presented an end-to-end 3D deep learning model for the automatic segmentation of brain tumors. Methods: The MRI data used in this study were obtained from a cohort of 630 GBM patients from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPENN-GBM). Data augmentation techniques such as flip and rotations were employed to further increase the sample size of the training set. The segmentation performance of models was evaluated by recall, precision, dice score, Lesion False Positive Rate (LFPR), Average Volume Difference (AVD) and Average Symmetric Surface Distance (ASSD). Results: When applying FLAIR, T1, ceT1, and T2 MRI modalities, FusionNet-A and FusionNet-C the best-performing model overall, with FusionNet-A particularly excelling in the enhancing tumor areas, while FusionNet-C demonstrates strong performance in the necrotic core and peritumoral edema regions. FusionNet-A excels in the enhancing tumor areas across all metrics (0.75 for recall, 0.83 for precision and 0.74 for dice scores) and also performs well in the peritumoral edema regions (0.77 for recall, 0.77 for precision and 0.75 for dice scores). Combinations including FLAIR and ceT1 tend to have better segmentation performance, especially for necrotic core regions. Using only FLAIR achieves a recall of 0.73 for peritumoral edema regions. Visualization results also indicate that our model generally achieves segmentation results similar to the ground truth. Discussion: FusionNet combines the benefits of U-Net and SegNet, outperforming the tumor segmentation performance of both. Although our model effectively segments brain tumors with competitive accuracy, we plan to extend the framework to achieve even better segmentation performance.
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.