ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
HemaContour: explicit parametric contour learning for robust ICH segmentation on non-contrast CT.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate hematoma delineation on non-contrast CT (NCCT) is pivotal for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume estimation and risk stratification, yet voxel-wise segmenters often fray at low-contrast edges or near calcifications, inflating boundary errors and biasing volumetry. We present HemaContour, a contour-centric framework that fits a closed parametric spline to the hematoma boundary. A coarse CNN seeds the contour, which is then optimized by an implicit contour-regression network trained with a shape-aware objective (overlap, boundary, curvature). Refinement is performed via differentiable snake dynamics, yielding smooth, anatomically plausible contours and native access to volume and shape metrics. On INSTANCE, HemaContour attains Dice 87.2% versus 85.0% for the best baseline (Swin-UNETR) and reduces HD95 from 8.5 mm to 7.3 mm (~14.1%). On PhysioNet CT-ICH (external validation), it maintains Dice 84.3% vs. 81.8% and HD95 8.5 mm vs. 9.9 mm (again ~14.1% improvement), with better volumetric agreement (AVE 4.3 mL vs. 5.0 mL; RVE 11.1% vs. 12.7%). The generalization gap is smaller for HemaContour (Dice Δ = 2.9 pp) than strong voxel/transformer baselines (3.2-3.6 pp). Qualitative stress tests highlight fewer extreme boundary excursions at edema interfaces, improved specificity near calcifications, and stability under mild artifacts. Runtime is practical (~12 ms/slice). By re-centering learning on an explicit, image-aware contour, HemaContour improves boundary fidelity and volumetric accuracy while preserving interpretability and readiness for clinical shape analytics, offering a robust alternative to purely voxel-centric segmentation for ICH NCCT.
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.