ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of lesion segmentation performance in diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient images of stroke by artificial neural networks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Ischemic Stroke Lesion Segmentation: A Narrative Review of Deep Learning Methods, Clinical Utility, and Future Directions.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- 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
Stroke is the second leading cause of death, accounting for 11% of deaths worldwide. Comparing diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images is important for stroke diagnosis, but most studies have focused on lesion segmentation using DWI. In this study, we compared the performance of lesion segmentation using DWI and ADC images. This study was conducted using a retrospective design A dataset was constructed using data from 360 patients with ischemic stroke collected from Gachon University Gil Medical Center. Artificial intelligence models, U-Net, and a fully connected network (FCN), were used to train each type of image data. The performance of the models was validated using five-fold cross-validation and evaluated based on metrics such as the dice similarity coefficient (DSC), accuracy, precision, and recall. As a result, the U-Net model demonstrated a DSC of 92.13 ± 0.91% on DWI and 83.68 ± 10% on ADC, whereas the FCN model exhibited a DSC of 82.86 ± 1.56% on DWI and 79.26 ± 1.19% on ADC. These metrics indicated that the trained models were suitable for lesion segmentation. A comparative analysis of DWI and ADC based on the trained models revealed similar results across the models, suggesting that lesion segmentation on ADC images is appropriate. For future research, the accuracy of ADC images is recommended to be imporved by utilizing images with different b-values, or training models with datasets that combe DWI and ADC images based on enhanced data.
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.