ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2024
Clinical performance review for 3-D Deep Learning segmentation of stroke infarct from diffusion-weighted images.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning in acute ischemic stroke imaging: a systematic review of CT- and MRI-based segmentation, triage, and prognostic modeling.Neuroradiology · 2026Review
- Deep Learning and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Final Infarct Core from CT Perfusion Data: A Comparison to the Clinical Standard.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: During the subacute phase of ischemic stroke, MR diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is used to assess the extent of tissue injury. Segmentation of DWI infarct is challenging due to disease variability, but Deep Learning (DL) provides a solution, outperforming existing methods on small datasets. However, a lack of clinically meaningful performance evaluation hinders clinical translation. Here we develop a DL DWI segmentation tool and provide clinical performance review. Methods: Subjects in this retrospective study presented with stroke symptoms and later underwent DWI imaging. DL architectures U-Net and DenseNet were used to develop a DWI segmentation tool. The Dice Similarly Coefficient (DSC) was used to select the best- and worst-performing model. Clinical experts reviewed these models on the clinical test set, agreeing with the model if no 'significant' error was present. The average agreement with the model and interrater agreement was also derived. Results: In total, 573 participants with an ischemic stroke were included. The DenseNet delivered the best model (DSC = 0.831 ± 0.064) with a mean inference time of 0.07 s. Clinicians compared this with the worst model (U-Net, DSC = 0.759 ± 0.122), agreeing with the DenseNet predictions more than the U-Net (83.8 % vs. 79.3 %). Clinicians also agreed with each other more over performance interpretation when evaluating the DenseNet over the U-Net (87.9 % vs. 72.7 %). Conclusion: Our DWI segmentation tool achieved high performance with clinical review providing meaningful performance evaluation. Model development will continue towards prospective deployment before which clinical review will be repeated. This work will benefit physicians in assessing patient prognosis.
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.