Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41968240›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2026

A deep learning-based model for postoperative resection assessment in glioblastoma: A comparative study.

Joon-Seok Kim, Jaehyun Ahn, Ji Eun Park, Ho Sung Kim, NakYoung Kim, Kook-Jin Ahn, Ilah Shin, Stephen Ahn

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Joon-Seok Kim *College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Jaehyun Ahn *College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Ji Eun ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Ho Sung KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
NakYoung KimDynapex Co., Ltd, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kook-Jin AhnDepartment of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Ilah ShinDepartment of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. ilahshin@gmail.com.
Stephen AhnDepartment of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. nsstp@catholic.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Post-operative imaging of glioblastoma presents unique challenges for tumor segmentation due to surgical cavities, hemorrhage, and treatment-related changes. Although multiple open-source artificial intelligence (AI) tools have demonstrated strong performance in pre-operative settings, their utility in post-operative assessment has been insufficiently validated. Thus, we sought to develop an AI-based model for segmentation of postoperative images and to evaluate its performance. Method Our newly developed subtraction-based AI-based segmentation model (Dynapex BT) was tested on the LUMIERE and RHUH-GBM dataset, publicly available cohorts. Its performance was evaluated in three domains: (1) extent of resection (EOR) classification by experts, (2) segmentation performance for residual tumors with non-gross total resection, and (3) correlation between EOR classification and measured residual tumor volume. Performance of our model was compared with that of DeepBraTumIA, a widely used commercially available U-Net-based brain tumor segmentation tool. Results In the LUMIERE cohort, Dynapex BT demonstrated higher GTR classification accuracy compared to DeepBraTumIA (0.80 vs. 0.58). Dynapex BT also achieved significantly better segmentation performance compared to DeepBraTumIA (DSC: 0.815 vs. 0.406, p = 0.002; precision: 0.771 vs. 0.366, p < 0.001; recall: 0.888 vs. 0.583, p = 0.019). Dynapex BT maintained GTR classification accuracy in expert-annotated validation cohort (RHUH-GBM) of 0.8161. Conclusion Our automated postoperative segmentation model outperformed a widely used commercial U-Net-based model not only in segmentation accuracy but also in clinically relevant endpoints. Future studies in larger, multi-institutional cohorts are warranted to evaluate its clinical utility.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningGlioblastomaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm, ResidualNeurosurgical ProceduresArtificial IntelligenceDeep learningExtent of resectionGlioblastoma; segmentation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.