ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Extended Technical and Clinical Validation of Deep Learning-Based Brainstem Segmentation for Application in Neurodegenerative Diseases.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disorders of the central nervous system, including neurodegenerative diseases, frequently affect the brainstem and can present with focal atrophy. This study aimed to (1) optimize deep learning-based brainstem segmentation for a wide range of pathologies and T1-weighted image acquisition parameters, (2) conduct a systematic technical and clinical validation, (3) improve segmentation quality in the presence of brainstem lesions, and (4) make an optimized brainstem segmentation tool available for public use. An intentionally heterogeneous ground truth dataset (n = 257) was employed in the training of deep learning models based on multi-dimensional gated recurrent units (MD-GRU) or the nnU-Net method. Segmentation performance was evaluated against ground truth labels. FreeSurfer was used for benchmarking in subsequent validation. Technical validation, including scan-rescan repeatability (n = 46) and inter-scanner reproducibility (n = 20, 3 different scanners) in unseen data, was conducted in patients with cerebral small vessel disease. Clinical validation in unseen data was performed in 1-year follow-up data of 16 patients with multiple system atrophy, evaluating the annual percentage volume change. Two lesion filling algorithms were investigated to improve segmentation performance in 23 patients with multiple sclerosis. The MD-GRU and nnU-Net models demonstrated very good segmentation performance (median Dice coefficients ≥ 0.95 each) and outperformed a previously published model trained on a narrower dataset. Scan-rescan repeatability and inter-scanner reproducibility yielded similar Bland-Altman derived limits of agreement for longitudinal FreeSurfer (total brainstem volume repeatability/reproducibility 0.68/1.85), MD-GRU (0.72/1.46), and nnU-Net (0.48/1.52). All methods showed comparable performance in the detection of atrophy in the total brainstem (atrophy detected in 100% of patients) and its substructures. In patients with multiple sclerosis, lesion filling further improved the accuracy of brainstem segmentation. We enhanced and systematically validated two fully automated deep learning brainstem segmentation methods and released them publicly. This enables a broader evaluation of brainstem volume as a candidate biomarker for neurodegeneration.
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.