ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Deep learning-based key point detection algorithm assisting vessel centerline extraction.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vessel centerline extraction assists in the quantitative analysis of plaque. Current algorithms generate significant errors for tortuous vessels, leading to inaccurate centerline extraction. This study proposed a key point detection algorithm to assist in vessel centerline extraction for the further quantitative analysis of plaque. Methods: A total of 539 patients with cerebrovascular disease from multiple centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. All the patients underwent 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Based on the experimental experience of radiologists and clinical requirements, 32 key points were chosen, including the carotid siphon, tiny vessels, and vessel bifurcations. Accurate point detection can improve the accuracy of centerline detection. The evaluation indices included the number of undetected points (undetected_num), the number of erroneously detected points (errodetected_num), and the accuracy of each point (pointacc). The average centerline distance (ACD) was used to evaluate the improvement in centerline extraction. Results: The average accuracy of the algorithm in detecting of the 32 points was 88.99%, and the algorithm had an accuracy exceeding 90% for 18 of these points. The accuracy of the algorithm at the sharp bend of the carotid siphon section reached 97%. The accuracy of the algorithm in detecting the points in the internal carotid artery and middle cerebral artery was 95.4%. Using the key point detection algorithm, the ACD for the right carotid artery was reduced to 0.484±0.321 mm but was 0.529±0.334 mm without the key point detection algorithm. The time required to detect the 32 key points was reduced from 319.843±6.434 to 2.046±0.315 seconds when the algorithm was used. Conclusions: The proposed algorithm was able to automatically and accurately detect the 32 key points, especially those in the internal carotid artery and middle cerebral artery, improving vessel centerline extraction accuracy, and thus assisting in plaque assessment.
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.