ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning-based automatic segmentation of cerebral infarcts on diffusion MRI.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining the Therapeutic Ceiling of Endovascular Thrombectomy in Large-Core Stroke: Beyond the Limits of ASPECTS.Stroke · 2026Article
- Advances in artificial intelligence for neuroimaging.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026Review
- Are AI Neuroimaging Models Ready for Clinical Use? A Systematic Methodological Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Quantitative assessment of apparent diffusion coefficient for neurological outcome prediction in status epilepticus: a pilot study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Automated Multi-Modal MRI Segmentation of Stroke Lesions and Corticospinal Tract Integrity for Functional Outcome Prediction.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Multicenter Validation of Artificial Intelligence Predicting Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusion Using Noncontrast Head CT.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Comparative validation of automated perfusion analysis software for ischemic penumbra estimation and EVT decision-making.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- 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
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We explored effects of (1) training with various sample sizes of multi-site vs. single-site training data, (2) cross-site domain adaptation, and (3) data sources and features on the performance of algorithms segmenting cerebral infarcts on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). We used 10,820 annotated diffusion-weighted images (DWIs) from 10 university hospitals. Algorithms based on 3D U-net were trained using progressively larger subsamples (ranging from 217 to 8661), while internal testing employed a distinct set of 2159 DWIs. External validation was conducted using three unrelated datasets (n = 2777, 50, and 250). For domain adaptation, we utilized 50 to 1000 subsamples from the 2777-image external target dataset. As the size of the multi-site training data increased from 217 to 1732, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and average Hausdorff distance (AHD) improved from 0.58 to 0.65 and from 16.1 to 3.75 mm, respectively. Further increases in sample size to 4330 and 8661 led to marginal gains in DSC (to 0.68 and 0.70, respectively) and in AHD (to 2.92 and 1.73). Similar outcomes were observed in external testing. Notably, performance was relatively poor for segmenting brainstem or hyperacute (< 3 h) infarcts. Domain adaptation, even with a small subsample (n = 50) of external data, conditioned the algorithm trained with 217 images to perform comparably to an algorithm trained with 8661 images. In conclusion, the use of multi-site data (approximately 2000 DWIs) and domain adaptation significantly enhances the performance and generalizability of deep learning algorithms for infarct segmentation.
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.