ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2026
NeuroFAIR curator: an AI-assisted framework for metadata enrichment, quality screening, curation prioritization, and FAIR readiness of brain tumor MRI data.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Public brain tumor MRI datasets are widely reused for classification and segmentation, but their metadata structure, technical annotation consistency, image quality, and FAIR readiness are seldom evaluated within a unified workflow. This study proposes NeuroFAIR Curator, an AI-assisted framework for metadata enrichment, computational quality screening, sample prioritization, and FAIR readiness assessment. The framework is intended for data stewardship and does not determine the clinical correctness of tumor annotations. Methods: NeuroFAIR Curator was evaluated on BRISC 2025, a two-dimensional contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI dataset distributed as JPEG images and PNG masks. A unified curation manifest combined images, masks, labels, split information, inferred anatomical planes, sequence descriptors, technical consistency checks, and quality indicators. A ResCNNClassifier generated label-confidence signals, while a UNet generated segmentation-derived uncertainty and agreement measures. Grad-CAM with deletion area under the curve (DAUC) supported classifier interpretation. Class- and plane-specific 1.5 × IQR limits were used for exploratory mask-area morphology screening. Seven normalized curation signals were fused into a Curation Uncertainty Index (CUI), and FAIR readiness was evaluated using an 18-sub-criterion rubric. Results: The framework generated 6,000 sample-level records linked with 15,586 external manifest entries and processed 4,793 image-mask pairs. Classification achieved 98.30% accuracy, 98.53% macro F1, and 99.79% macro AUC. Segmentation achieved Dice 82.30%, IoU 72.69%, precision 83.64%, recall 84.61%, Hausdorff distance 7.84 pixels, and HD95 4.11 pixels at a validation-selected threshold of 0.95. Exploratory morphology screening flagged 181 of 4,793 masks (3.78%) as statistically atypical; these flags were not interpreted as confirmed annotation errors. The mean Grad-CAM DAUC was 0.2996. CUI ranking captured 49 flagged samples at a 1% review budget. Findability improved from 87.50 to 100.00 and Interoperability from 36.00 to 91.98, while Accessibility and Reusability remained unchanged under the declared rubric. Conclusion: NeuroFAIR Curator converts a public brain tumor MRI corpus into a metadata-enriched, technically checked, quality-screened, review-prioritized, and FAIR-aligned neuroinformatics resource. Its morphology flags are exploratory computational signals for subsequent assessment rather than clinical judgments of mask correctness.
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.