ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Deep learning-based automatic segmentation of brain structures on MRI: A test-retest reproducibility analysis.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regional Brain Volume Variation Across Adulthood: A Cross-Sectional MRI Analysis of Age, Sex, and Hemispheric Asymmetry.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- White Matter Infarct Detection with Transformer and Auto-ML-Derived Models.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Novel multi-task learning for Alzheimer's stage classification using hippocampal MRI segmentation, feature fusion, and nomogram modeling.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Brain Atrophy and Cognitive Impairment in Primary and Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Cohort-Similar Progressive MS Phenotype.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- AI-Driven Innovations in Neuroradiology and Neurosurgery: Scoping Review of Current Evidence and Future Directions.Cancers · 2025Review
- The application of radiomics in the diagnosis and evaluation of cognitive impairment related to neurological diseases.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of our study was to assess the reproducibility of deep learning-based automatic segmentation of brain structures in MRI scans across different scanner types and magnetic field strengths, particularly focusing on the comparison between 1.5 T and 3 T MRI scanners. Methods: Our analysis encompassed a comprehensive examination of MRI images, focusing on the consistency of volumetric segmentation. We utilized advanced deep learning techniques with human-in-the-loop as a part of the workflow for segmenting brain structures and compared results across subsequent scans using the same and different scanner types. Results: Our findings revealed high consistency in volumetric segmentation when comparing scans conducted on the same type of scanner (1.5 T to 1.5 T or 3 T to 3 T). The study revealed slightly better segmentation results for 1.5 T scanners compared to 3 T scanners when each was used independently. However, cross-comparisons between different scanner types (1.5 T vs. 3 T) demonstrated slightly less consistency, highlighting the influence of magnetic field strength on segmentation accuracy. Conclusion: This study emphasizes the necessity of using the same scanner type and protocol for reliable MRI studies, particularly for brain atrophy monitoring. The high repeatability of deep learning-based segmentation under these conditions confirms its efficacy for clinical and research applications.
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.