Back

Does Deep Learning Vascular Segmentation on CTA Improve Vertebral Artery Dissection Detection?

Zaveri, S.; Zhang, D.; Castellino, E.; Calabrese, E.

2026-09-22 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.09.20.26363486 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: The aims of this study were to develop an externally validated deep learning vascular segmentation model for digital enhancement of vertebral artery dissection detection on CTA and to assess clinical utility of the model through a paired crossover reader study. Materials and Methods: This retrospective, IRB-approved study conducted from September 2024 to July 2026 included an internal training cohort of 84 manually segmented CTAs plus 17 CTAs from the RSNA Intracranial Aneurysm Challenge (101 CTAs total) and an external testing cohort of 40 CTAs (22 positive, 18 negative for vertebral artery dissection). A nnU-Net (version 2) model was trained using five-fold cross-validation with the entire training cohort. Technical performance was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). A two-part crossover reader study included 10 readers who assessed diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and interpretation time with and without segmentation-based augmentation. Statistical analyses included McNemar's exact test (accuracy) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test (confidence, time), with P < .05 considered significant. Results: The model achieved a DSC of 0.96 (SD 0.01). In the reader study, diagnostic accuracy was lower with augmentation than without (0.72 vs 0.84, P < 0.001), while confidence (3.98 vs 3.96, P = .77) and interpretation time (137.3 vs 166.7 seconds, P = .54) did not differ significantly. Subjectively, 7 of 10 readers reported they would use the tool routinely in acute or trauma settings. Conclusion: Although the deep learning model demonstrated accurate segmentation of vascular structures, further validation is needed to establish its utility for enabling accurate diagnosis of VAD in fast-paced clinical settings.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.