ArticleScientific reports2026
Dynamic expert routing with boundary-aware decoding for accurate brain tumor segmentation from incomplete MRI data.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Precise segmentation of brain tumors from multi-modal MRI scans is critical to clinical diagnosis and therapeutic planning, but real images from MRI machines are often lacking in some modalities due to variability in acquisition procedures or clinical limitations. This study proposes a modality-agnostic approach to segmentation of tumors from incomplete MRI scans and ultimately creates a framework that effectively supports the robust segmentation of tumors in incomplete input. The framework employs adaptive expert routing combined with low-rank adaptation and cross-modality consistency regularization as well as uncertainty-aware decoding and boundary-guided curriculum training to achieve a unified architecture for the same purpose. The effectiveness of this framework was determined using both BraTS2019 and BraTS2020 benchmark data, where the twin scores for BraTS2019 result in (WT = 0.918/TC = 0.889/ET = 0.852) and (ii) BraTS2020 result in (WT = 0.924 and/TC = 0.894 and/ET = 0.861) for a total of eight cases (WT = 4 and TC = 3 and ET = 1) with full modality input for both BraTS2019 and BraTS2020. Importantly, regardless of whether individual or multiple modalities were removed, all cases exhibited continued robustness through a managed degree of decline in performance. Additionally, compared to both benchmark and non-benchmark protocols, our framework exhibited improved boundary alignment characteristics and statistically significant increases in performance relative to traditional/comparative architectures while maintaining competitive computational efficiency. Thus these results suggest that explicitly modeling the availability of modality representations during the learning of a representation provides a practical means to produce accurate segmentation results for a wide variety of tumors from MRI images in high degree heterogeneous clinical diagnostic settings.
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.