ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Automated segmentation of pituitary adenomas, pituitary gland, and internal carotid arteries on routine coronal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI: a single-sequence feasibility study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pituitary adenomas (PAs) alter the anatomy of the pituitary gland (PG) and internal carotid arteries (ICAs), requiring accurate segmentation for surgical planning and risk assessment. Multi-sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based automatic segmentation methods have been employed but remain limited in routine clinical practice due to protocol inconsistencies. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical relevance of Swin-Unet and nnU-Net for automated segmentation of the PA, PG, and ICA using only contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1CE) coronal MRI. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 255 patients with surgically confirmed PAs was analyzed. T1CE coronal MRI, acquired from heterogeneous scanners and protocols, was used for model development. Manual annotations of the PA, PG, and ICA by expert neurosurgeons served as ground truth. Two deep learning architectures were evaluated: 1) Swin-Unet, a transformer-based U-Net variant, and 2) nnU-Net, a self-configuring CNN framework. Models were trained using standard preprocessing and five-fold cross-validation, with ensemble predictions generated for final evaluation. Model performance was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95), true-positive rate (TPR), and false-positive rate (FPR). Additionally, slice-level presence detection and per-patient processing time were evaluated. Results: Both models demonstrated comparable voxel-wise performance, with mean DSC = 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.74) for Swin-Unet and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65-0.73) for nnU-Net. Segmentation accuracy was lower for the PG compared to the PA and ICA. Boundary-based evaluation showed a mean HD95 of 5.21 mm (95% CI: 4.40-6.03) for Swin-Unet and 5.30 mm (95% CI: 4.44-6.16) for nnU-Net. Slice-level recognition yielded a mean F1-score of 0.89 ± 0.09 for Swin-Unet and 0.87 ± 0.08 for nnU-Net across the PA, PG, and ICA, respectively. The mean computation time was 78.4 seconds per patient (95% CI: 61.5-95.5), and the segmentation outputs facilitated approximate 3D reconstructions for qualitative assessment. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of automated segmentation of the PA, PG, and ICA using single-sequence T1CE coronal MRI. While voxel-level accuracy was modest, the combination of reliable slice-level recognition, rapid processing, and 3D visualization suggests potential utility as an adjunct tool for radiologic assessment and surgical planning.
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.