Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
ZENODOarrow_drop_down
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY ND
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY ND
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

External Validation and Systematic Error Characterization of Automated Stroke Lesion Segmentation with Exploratory Spatial-Clinical Modeling

Authors: Yiğit Hasan Arı;

External Validation and Systematic Error Characterization of Automated Stroke Lesion Segmentation with Exploratory Spatial-Clinical Modeling

Abstract

Accurate infarct segmentation is essential for quantitative stroke imaging and reproducible downstream analyses. We performed external validation of a deep learning–based automated stroke lesion segmentation framework on an independent cohort of acute ischemic stroke patients (N=138). Segmentation performance was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), precision, recall, and 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95). The model achieved an overall DSC of 0.78 ± 0.18 and HD95 of 6.9 ± 13.1 mm. Stratified analysis revealed reduced performance in small infarcts (<5 mL; DSC 0.61) and a systematic size-dependent bias in medium-sized lesions. Comprehensive failure case analysis identified boundary uncertainty, partial volume effects, and small-lesion detectability as primary error sources. Exploratory spatial-clinical modeling demonstrated modest associations between lesion volume and admission NIHSS (r=0.198, p=0.030). Incorporating spatial features showed a non-significant trend toward improved discrimination of severe stroke (AUC 0.665 vs. 0.603). These findings confirm robust external performance of automated stroke segmentation while highlighting systematic error patterns and the limited explanatory capacity of imaging-only clinical models. The results support cautious integration of topology-aware imaging biomarkers in stroke outcome research.

Keywords

Deep Learning, Medical Imaging, Segmentation, Ischemic Stroke

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!