ArticleJournal of neurosurgery2025
Deep learning-based segmentation of the trigeminal nerve and surrounding vasculature in trigeminal neuralgia.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in trigeminal neuralgia: trigeminal nerve segmentation and neurovascular conflict detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Current state of research and future developments of artificial intelligence in pain diagnosis and treatment.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Prevalence of trigeminal neuralgia in Jincheng, China.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePreoperative workup of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) consists of identification of neurovascular features on MRI. In this study, the authors apply and evaluate the performance of deep learning models for segmentation of the trigeminal nerve and surrounding vasculature to quantify anatomical features of the nerve and vessels.
methodsSix U-Net-based neural networks, each with a different encoder backbone, were trained to label constructive interference in steady-state MRI voxels as nerve, vasculature, or background. A retrospective dataset of 50 TN patients at the authors' institution who underwent preoperative high-resolution MRI in 2022 was utilized to train and test the models. Performance was measured by the Dice coefficient and intersection over union (IoU) metrics. Anatomical characteristics, such as surface area of neurovascular contact and distance to the contact point, were computed and compared between the predicted and ground truth segmentations.
resultsOf the evaluated models, the best performing was U-Net with an SE-ResNet50 backbone (Dice score = 0.775 ± 0.015, IoU score = 0.681 ± 0.015). When the SE-ResNet50 backbone was used, the average surface area of neurovascular contact in the testing dataset was 6.90 mm2, which was not significantly different from the surface area calculated from manual segmentation (p = 0.83). The average calculated distance from the brainstem to the contact point was 4.34 mm, which was also not significantly different from manual segmentation (p = 0.29).
conclusionsU-Net-based neural networks perform well for segmenting trigeminal nerve and vessels from preoperative MRI volumes. This technology enables the development of quantitative and objective metrics for radiographic evaluation of TN.
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.