ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
Multi-reader evaluation of deep learning-based auto-segmentation of eloquent brain arteriovenous malformation on MRA and white matter tractography in stereotactic radiosurgery.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo minimize the radiation injury for white matter (WM) pathways during brain arteriovenous malformation (bAVM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), the WM tractography is integrated into treatment planning to identify WM pathways and restrict receiving dose. Manual segmentation of eloquent bAVM adjacent to WM pathways is time-consuming and prone to substantial inter-practitioner variability due to intricate entanglement within eloquent brain areas. The objective of this study is to develop and evaluate a deep learning (DL) system for the segmentation of eloquent bAVM in a clinical setting.
methodsA total of 191 eloquent bAVM patients who underwent WM tractography and 3D time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA) images were enrolled. 153 patients were used to construct a two-stage DL bAVM segmentation ensemble (TBASE) consisting of 2D detection and 3D segmentation models to segment the bAVM, the other 38 to test performance. Comparative experiments with ResNet and U-Net were conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed network. A randomized multi-reader evaluation was then conducted to assess the impact of TBASE assistance for bAVM segmentation using ten algorithm-unseen cases. Six medical professionals contoured the same series of cases in both assisted and unassisted modes, with a 6-week memory washout period between each session. The aided and unaided Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC), Hausdorff Distance (HD), along with contouring times were compared.
resultsThe mean values and standard deviations for DSC and HD of TBASE are 0.87 ± 0.03 and 3.51 ± 0.26, respectively, while Res-Net and U-Net results are 0.75 ± 0.12 and 4.14 ± 0.99, 0.77 ± 0.09 and 3.94 ± 0.82, respectively. The average volume difference across all patients in test dataset is 0.25 ± 1.39 cc, with no statistically significant variation observed. With TBASE assistance, the mean DSC of readers improved from 0.76 ± 0.07 to 0.86 ± 0.05 (P < 0.001), with corresponding values of mean HD reducing from 4.31 ± 0.68 to 3.35 ± 0.17 (P < 0.001) and a mean time saving of 52.15% ± 13.85% per patient. Less-experienced readers achieved greater improvements in contouring accuracy compared to specialists (DSC increase: 0.15 ± 0.11 vs. 0.06 ± 0.09; P < 0.001), while demonstrating similar reductions in contouring time as specialists (50.68% ± 14.62% vs. 55.1% ± 11.98%; P = 0.217).
conclusionsThe reliable eloquent bAVM automated-segmentation method has been validated in clinical workflow. The TBASE assistance improved the accuracy and efficiency of the eloquent bAVM manual delineation while considering WM pathway protection. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.