ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Automatic Segmentation of Ischaemic Stroke Lesions Using Transformers and Convolutional Neural Networks Applied to Multimodal Neuroimaging.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ischaemic stroke constitutes a leading cause of global disability. Rapid extraction of the infarct core from multimodal computed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging guides reperfusion therapy and clinical decision-making. Deep learning algorithms automate this delineation, yet hospital translation is hindered by high-dimensional data, inter-scanner variability, and the low contrast of early ischaemia. Architectural comparisons in the literature frequently carry methodological biases originating from disparate preprocessing protocols and data partitions. This study reduces these variables by evaluating three segmentation strategies under a shared preprocessing pipeline and an identical data partition using the ISLES 2024 dataset. Three models were trained on the same 133-patient partition using a shared preprocessing pipeline based on morphological skull-stripping and modality-specific clinical intensity ranges. The data, preprocessing, and partitions are held constant across models, while framework-dependent factors (optimiser, patch size, physical field of view, spatial resampling, augmentation policy, and model capacity) remain coupled to each architecture and are therefore treated as part of the compared strategy rather than as fully isolated variables. The first of these is a single-stage 5-channel nnU-Net, followed by a two-stage cascaded nnU-Net (2 and 7 channels) and a lightweight Transformer (SegFormer3D). Evaluation on a fixed 15-patient held-out test set isolated the architectural performance. The cascade model achieved the highest Dice Similarity Coefficient (0.224). The single-stage nnU-Net provided the most precise volumetric estimation, recording an Absolute Volume Difference (AVD) of 23.70 mL and a lesion-wise F1-score of 7.60%. On the other hand, SegFormer3D returned the lowest overall metrics (DSC 0.163, AVD 27.28 mL, F1 2.30%). In the small held-out cohort, paired statistical testing did not reveal significant differences between models, so the reported orderings describe the present dataset and experimental configuration rather than a general architectural law. Within these limits, the local inductive bias of the convolutional models retained an empirical advantage over the single Transformer evaluated when processing this moderately sized neuroimaging dataset, and complex cascade topologies offered only marginal gains compared with a well-calibrated single-stage network. Although the predictive segmentation of infarcted tissue at acute stages still demands computational improvements, these results suggest that preprocessing quality is at least as decisive for clinical impact as increasing the complexity of neural architectures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.