ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Assessing Impact of Data Quality in Early Post-Operative Glioblastoma Segmentation.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantification of the residual tumor from early post-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential in follow-up and treatment planning for glioblastoma patients. Residual tumor segmentation from early post-operative MRI is particularly challenging compared to the closely related task of pre-operative segmentation, as the tumor lesions are small, fragmented, and easily confounded with noise in the resection cavity. Recently, several studies successfully trained deep learning models for early post-operative segmentation, yet with subpar performances compared to the analogous task pre-operatively. In this study, the impact of image and annotation quality on model training and performance in early post-operative glioblastoma segmentation was assessed. A dataset consisting of early post-operative MRI scans from 423 patients and two hospitals in Norway and Sweden was assembled, for which image and annotation qualities were evaluated by expert neurosurgeons. The Attention U-Net architecture was trained with five-fold cross-validation on different quality-based subsets of the dataset in order to evaluate the impact of training data quality on model performance. Including low-quality images in the training set did not deteriorate performance on high-quality images. However, models trained on exclusively high-quality images did not generalize to low-quality images. Models trained on exclusively high-quality annotations reached the same performance level as the models trained on the entire dataset, using only two-thirds of the dataset. Both image and annotation quality had a significant impact on model performance. In dataset curation, images should ideally be representative of the quality variations in the real-world clinical scenario, and efforts should be made to ensure exact ground truth annotations of high quality.
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.