ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Data-centric strategies enable cross-center generalization of convolutional neural networks for CT brain extraction.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To determine if a small number of annotated scans can enable clinically meaningful adaptation of a pre-trained convolutional neural network across different centers. Using non-contrast head CT brain extraction as the test case, we also sought to identify the factors contributing to performance drops when applying models to new sites. Materials and methods: Non-contrast head CT scans were used in this study, from two separate institutions (Center A: 595 scans; Center B: 486 scans). A public pre-trained U-Net model for brain tissue extraction was first evaluated on Center A dataset as a baseline. The model was then fine-tuned incrementally using stratified subsets of annotated scans (5, 15, 25, and 75). The pre-trained model was subsequently transferred to Center B dataset and adapted through the same incremental fine-tuning strategy. The primary metric of interest was the three-dimensional Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), with a pre-defined minimal important difference (MID) set at 0.01. To identify predictors of baseline DSC and fine-tuning gain driving cross-center performance degradation, variance inflation factor (VIF) screening and logit Gaussian linear models (GLMs) were applied, with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis providing qualitative feature importance rankings. Results: At center A, the pre-trained model achieved a DSC of 0.9634 ± 0.0151. Fine-tuning with five annotated scans raised DSC to 0.9784 ± 0.0070 ( Conclusion: For NCCT brain extraction assessed across two centers, fine-tuning a publicly pre-trained CNN using five local annotated scans can generate clinically valuable cross-center segmentation gains; slice thickness heterogeneity appears to be the dominant source of inter-center domain shift.
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.