ArticleDigital health
Comparing two deep learning algorithms for acute infarct segmentation on diffusion-weighted imaging in routine clinical practice.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Infarct volumes on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) are critical for predicting stroke outcomes and guiding late-window endovascular thrombectomy. Although 3D U-Net-based deep learning achieves high sensitivity, it often yields false positives due to infarct mimics. We developed a SegMamba-based model to enhance global volumetric feature extraction and compared both approaches on a dataset encompassing multiple DWI hyperintense pathologies. Methods: Two models were trained on a multicenter dataset of 10,820 DWI scans (2011-2014) and evaluated against manual segmentation on an external test set of 2731 fresh DWI scans. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed in a clinical cohort of 1194 patients from a different center (2017-2020) who underwent DWI for various indications. We compared the models using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), average Hausdorff distance (AHD), sensitivity, and specificity. Results: The training, external test, and clinical test datasets had mean (SD) ages of 67.9 (12.8), 68.2 (12.7), and 63.9 (15.4) years, with 58.9%, 60.4%, and 58.1% male, respectively. In the external test dataset, SegMamba and U-Net achieved similar DSC (0.786 vs 0.785; Conclusions: Changing the main architecture of the segmentation model alone maintained segmentation performance within ischemic-stroke cohorts, while achieving better classification in broader disease populations. This study highlights the need for deep-learning models to be validated not only for segmentation performance within target disease cohorts but also across diverse clinical environments to ensure practical utility.
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.