Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40140740›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2025

Automated segmentation of brain metastases in T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MR images pre and post stereotactic radiosurgery.

Hemalatha Kanakarajan, Wouter De Baene, Patrick Hanssens, Margriet Sitskoorn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hemalatha KanakarajanDepartment of Cognitive Neuropsychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. h.kanakarajan@tilburguniversity.edu.
Wouter De BaeneDepartment of Cognitive Neuropsychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. W.DeBaene@tilburguniversity.edu.
Patrick HanssensGamma Knife Center, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Margriet SitskoornDepartment of Cognitive Neuropsychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeAccurate segmentation of brain metastases on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is tedious and time-consuming for radiologists that could be optimized with deep learning (DL). Previous studies assessed several DL algorithms focusing only on training and testing the models on the planning MRI only. The purpose of this study is to evaluate well-known DL approaches (nnU-Net and MedNeXt) for their performance on both planning and follow-up MRI. MATERIALS AND

methodsPre-treatment brain MRIs were retrospectively collected for 255 patients at Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital (ETZ): 201 for training and 54 for testing, including follow-up MRIs for the test set. To increase heterogeneity, we added the publicly available MRI scans from the Mathematical oncology laboratory of 75 patients to the training data. The performance was compared between the two models, with and without the addition of the public data. To statistically compare the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of the two models trained on different datasets over multiple time points, we used Linear Mixed Models.

resultsAll models obtained a good DSC (DSC > = 0.93) for planning MRI. MedNeXt trained with combined data provided the best DSC for follow-ups at 6, 15, and 21 months (DSC of 0.74, 0.74, and 0.70 respectively) and jointly the best DSC for follow-ups at three months with MedNeXt trained with ETZ data only (DSC of 0.78) and 12 months with nnU-Net trained with combined data (DSC of 0.71). On the other hand, nnU-Net trained with combined data provided the best sensitivity and FNR for most follow-ups. The statistical analysis showed that MedNeXt provides higher DSC for both datasets and the addition of public data to the training dataset results in a statistically significant increase in performance in both models.

conclusionThe models achieved a good performance score for planning MRI. Though the models performed less effectively for follow-ups, the addition of public data enhanced their performance, providing a viable solution to improve their efficacy for the follow-ups. These algorithms hold promise as a valuable tool for clinicians for automated segmentation of planning and follow-up MRI scans during stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning and response evaluations, respectively. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiosurgeryAdultAgedAlgorithmsContrast MediaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaAuto-segmentationBrain metastasesDeep learningMedNeXtnnU-Net

Identifiers

PMID40140740
PMCPMC11948752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.