ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
The value of AI for assessing longitudinal brain metastases treatment response.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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.
- Temporal Dynamics and Heterogeneity in Brain Metastases: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Current MRI Surveillance Practices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic imaging and emerging image-guided neurointervention in brain tumors: a narrative review.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective follow-up of brain metastasis (BM) patients post-treatment is crucial for adapting therapies and detecting new lesions. Current guidelines (Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-BM) have limitations, such as patient-level assessments and arbitrary lesion selection, which may not reflect outcomes in high tumor burden cases. Accurate, reproducible, and automated response assessments can improve follow-up decisions, including (1) optimizing re-treatment timing to avoid treating responding lesions or delaying treatment of progressive ones, and (2) enhancing precision in evaluating responses during clinical trials. Methods: We compared manual and automatic (deep learning-based) lesion contouring using unidimensional and volumetric criteria. Analysis focused on (1) agreement in size and RANO-BM categories, (2) stability of measurements under scanner rotations and over time, and (3) predictability of 1-year outcomes. The study included 49 BM patients, with 184 MRI studies and 448 lesions, retrospectively assessed by radiologists. Results: Automatic contouring and volumetric criteria demonstrated superior stability ( Conclusion: Automatic BM contouring and volumetric measurements provide promising tools to improve follow-up and treatment decisions in BM management. By enhancing precision and reproducibility, these methods can streamline clinical workflows and improve the evaluation of response in trials and practice.
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.