ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Automated segmentation of brain metastases in T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MR images pre and post stereotactic radiosurgery.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of artificial intelligence for brain tumor segmentation, treatment planning, and outcome prediction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-driven clinical decision support systems for early detection and precision therapy in oral cancer: a mini review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.