ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Automated brain extraction for canine magnetic resonance images.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 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.
- Investigating gray matter volumes in idiopathic epileptic Border Collies and Greater Swiss Mountain Dogs using voxel-based morphometry.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid markers and magnetic resonance imaging lesion volume predicting relapse in canine meningoencephalitis of unknown origin.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrain extraction is a common preprocessing step when working with intracranial medical imaging data. While several tools exist to automate the preprocessing of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the human brain, none are available for canine MRIs. We present a pipeline mapping separate 2D scans to a 3D image, and a neural network for canine brain extraction. METHODOLOGY: The training dataset consisted of T1-weighted and contrast-enhanced images from 68 dogs of different breeds, all cranial conformations (mesaticephalic, dolichocephalic, brachycephalic), with several pathological conditions, taken at three institutions. Testing was performed on a similarly diverse group of 10 dogs with images from a 4th institution.
resultsThe model achieved excellent results in terms of Dice ([Formula: see text]) and Jaccard ([Formula: see text]) metrics and generalised well across different MRI scanners, the three aforementioned skull types, and variations in head size and breed. The pipeline was effective for a combination of one to three acquisition planes (i.e., transversal, dorsal, and sagittal). Aside from the T1 weighted imaging training datasets, the model also performed well on other MRI sequences with Jaccardian indices and median Dice scores ranging from 0.86 to 0.89 and 0.92 to 0.94, respectively.
conclusionsOur approach was robust for automated brain extraction. Variations in canine anatomy and performance degradation in multi-scanner data can largely be mitigated through normalisation and augmentation techniques. Brain extraction, as a preprocessing step, can improve the accuracy of an algorithm for abnormality classification in MRI image slices.
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.