ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Exploring Multi-Pathology Brain Segmentation: From Volume-Based to Component-Based Deep Learning Analysis.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection and segmentation of brain abnormalities using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is an important task that, nowadays, the role of AI algorithms as supporting tools is well established both at the research and clinical-production level. While the performance of the state-of-the-art models is increasing, reaching radiologists and other experts' accuracy levels in many cases, there is still a lot of research needed on the direction of in-depth and transparent evaluation of the correct results and failures, especially in relation to important aspects of the radiological practice: abnormality position, intensity level, and volume. In this work, we focus on the analysis of the segmentation results of a pre-trained U-net model trained and validated on brain MRI examinations containing four different pathologies: Tumors, Strokes, Multiple Sclerosis (MS), and White Matter Hyperintensities (WMH). We present the segmentation results for both the whole abnormal volume and for each abnormal component inside the examinations of the validation set. In the first case, a dice score coefficient (DSC), sensitivity, and precision of 0.76, 0.78, and 0.82, respectively, were found, while in the second case the model detected and segmented correct (True positives) the 48.8% (DSC ≥ 0.5) of abnormal components, partially correct the 27.1% (0.05 > DSC > 0.5), and missed (False Negatives) the 24.1%, while it produced 25.1% False Positives. Finally, we present an extended analysis between the True positives, False Negatives, and False positives versus their position inside the brain, their intensity at three MRI modalities (FLAIR, T2, and T1ce) and their volume.
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.