Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567939›Full record

ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2024

Clinical performance review for 3-D Deep Learning segmentation of stroke infarct from diffusion-weighted images.

Freda Werdiger, Vignan Yogendrakumar, Milanka Visser, James Kolacz, Christina Lam, Mitchell Hill, Chushuang Chen, Mark W Parsons, Andrew Bivard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Freda WerdigerDepartment of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Vignan YogendrakumarMelbourne Brain Centre, Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Milanka VisserDepartment of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
James KolaczDepartment of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Christina LamMelbourne Brain Centre, Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Mitchell HillDepartment of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Chushuang ChenMelbourne Brain Centre, Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Mark W ParsonsIngham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, Australia.
Andrew BivardDepartment of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Deep learning segmentationDiffusion-weighted imagingIschemic stroke

Identifiers

PMID40567939
PMCPMC12172793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.