ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated deep U-Net model for ischemic stroke lesion segmentation in the sub-acute phase.
Article in Scientific reports, 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 and precision medicine.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Parameter-free dual-student ensemble for semi-supervised ischemic stroke segmentation on follow-up NCCT.Frontiers in neurology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual segmentation of sub-acute ischemic stroke lesions in fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging (FLAIR MRI) is time-consuming and subject to inter-observer variability, limiting clinical workflow efficiency. To develop and validate an automated deep learning framework for accurate segmentation of sub-acute ischemic stroke lesions in FLAIR MRI using rigorous validation methodology. We propose a novel multi-path residual U-Net(U-shaped network) architecture with six parallel pathways per block (depths 0-5 convolutional layers) and 2.34 million trainable parameters. Hyperparameters were systematically optimized using 5-fold cross-validation across 60 configurations. We addressed intensity inhomogeneity using N4 bias field correction and employed strict patient-level data partitioning (18 training, 5 validation, 5 test patients) to prevent data leakage. Statistical analysis utilized bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals and Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Our model achieved a validation dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.85 ± 0.12 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91), a sensitivity of 0.82 ± 0.15, a specificity of 0.95 ± 0.04, and a Hausdorff distance of 14.1 ± 5.8 mm. Test set performance remained consistent (DSC: 0.89 ± 0.07), confirming generalizability. Computational efficiency was demonstrated with 45 ms inference time per slice. The architecture demonstrated statistically significant improvements over DRANet (p = 0.003), 2D CNN (p = 0.001), and Attention U-Net (p = 0.001), while achieving competitive performance comparable to CSNet (p = 0.68). The proposed framework demonstrates robust performance for automated stroke lesion segmentation with rigorous statistical validation. However, multi-site validation across diverse clinical environments remains essential before clinical implementation.
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.