ArticleScientific reports2026
Deep learning based 3D brain metastasis synthesis with configurable parameters for 3D data augmentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop and evaluate deep learning methods for synthesizing 3D brain metastases (BM) on magnetic resonance (MR) images to improve downstream BM detection and segmentation performances for robust clinical detection and streamlined treatment-planning workflows, T1-weighted MR images of 1832 patients with 10,276 BM were divided into training (80%), validation (10%), and test (10%) datasets for training the BM synthesis models and downstream models for BM detection and segmentation. A 3D-2D generative adversarial network with controllable configurations for 3D BM synthesis was proposed. The network consists of two 3D generators to create 3D lesion intermediate representations controlling the lesion’s characteristics and 3D continuity, and a 2D generator with a 2D perceptual loss to generate realistic lesion images slice by slice. Training with synthetic data (SD) and conventional augmentation (CA) on the downstream tasks were compared using two-sided pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank test. SD showed improvement on the BM detection and segmentation downstream tasks with limited training data. Especially, when 10% of the original training data was available, adding 176 SD improved BM segmentation Dice by 2.9% relative to CA alone (0.665 vs. 0.646, p < 0.0001). With 8000 SD, segmentation boundary accuracy further improved, reducing HD95 by 10.5% and ASSD by 23.5% compared with CA alone.
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.