@prefix this: . @prefix sub: . @prefix np: . @prefix dct: . @prefix xsd: . @prefix rdfs: . @prefix prov: . @prefix npx: . sub:Head { this: np:hasAssertion sub:assertion; np:hasProvenance sub:provenance; np:hasPublicationInfo sub:pubinfo; a np:Nanopublication . } sub:assertion { ""; "Applied sciences"; a . "service-account-enrichment"; a . ; , , , , ; "11257"^^xsd:integer; "https://api.rohub.org/api/ros/a8c21c10-47aa-4145-a2f2-173f1c501773/crate/download/"; ; "2022-03-22 00:57:43.228000+00:00"; "2025-03-05 00:59:13.596088+00:00"; "2022-03-22 00:57:43.228000+00:00"; "To facilitate a more widespread use of volumetric tumor segmentation in clinical studies, there is an urgent need for reliable, user-friendly segmentation software. The aim of this study was therefore to compare three different software packages for semi-automatic brain tumor segmentation of glioblastoma; namely BrainVoyagerTM QX, ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer, and to make data available for future reference. Pre-operative, contrast enhanced T1-weighted 1.5 or 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans were obtained in 20 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for glioblastoma. MRI scans were segmented twice in each software package by two investigators. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software agreement was compared by using differences of means with 95 % limits of agreement (LoA), Dice’s similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Time expenditure of segmentations was measured using a stopwatch. Eighteen tumors were included in the analyses. Inter-rater agreement was highest for BrainVoyager with difference of means of 0.19 mL and 95 % LoA from -2.42 mL to 2.81 mL. Between-software agreement and 95 % LoA were very similar for the different software packages. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software DSC were ≥ 0.93 in all analyses. Time expenditure was approximately 41 min per segmentation in BrainVoyager, and 18 min per segmentation in both 3D Slicer and ITK-Snap. Our main findings were that there is a high agreement within and between the software packages in terms of small intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software differences of means and high Dice’s similarity coefficients. Time expenditure was highest for BrainVoyager, but all software packages were relatively time-consuming, which may limit usability in an everyday clinical setting."; "application/ld+json"; , , , ; "https://w3id.org/ro-id/a8c21c10-47aa-4145-a2f2-173f1c501773"; ; "Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages"; "MANUAL"; "agreement", "coefficient", "comparison", "concord", "consumption", "diversity", "glioblastoma", "magnetic resonance imaging", "partition", "rater", "software"; "earth sciences"; "Computing and information technology", "IT-computer sciences", "Medical procedure-test", "Software"; "Intra-", "expenditure", "glioblastoma", "magnetic resonance imaging", "rater", "segmentation", "software"; "mathematical and computer sciences"; "Hausdorff distance", "differences of means", "glioblastoma segmentation", "software packages in terms", "time expenditure"; "Between-software agreement and 95 % LoA were very similar for the different software packages.", "Our main findings were that there is a high agreement within and between the software packages in terms of small intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software differences of means and high Dice?s similarity coefficients.", "To facilitate a more widespread use of volumetric tumor segmentation in clinical studies, there is an urgent need for reliable, user-friendly segmentation software."; "18 min", "approximately 41 min"; a , , , , ; "medicine", "oncology", "software"; "Even Fyllingen, Anne Line Stensjøen, Erik Magnus Berntsen, Ole Solheim, and Ingerid Reinertsen. \"Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages.\" ROHub. Mar 22 ,2022. https://w3id.org/ro-id/a8c21c10-47aa-4145-a2f2-173f1c501773." . "metadata"; a , . "raw data"; a , . ; "data"; a , . ; "biblio"; a , . dct:bibliographicCitation "Fyllingen, E., Stensjøen, A. L., Berntsen, E. M., Solheim, O., Reinertsen, I. (2016).Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages [Data set]. Norstore. https://doi.org/10.11582/2016.00004"; dct:rightsHolder "USIGT (USIGT)"; dct:type "Image"; ; "https://archive.sigma2.no/pages/public/datasetDetail.jsf?id=10.11582/2016.00004"; ; "2016-10-11 00:00:00"; "2022-03-22 00:58:14.814982+00:00"; "To facilitate a more widespread use of volumetric tumor segmentation in clinical studies, there is an urgent need for reliable, user-friendly segmentation software. The aim of this study was therefore to compare three different software packages for semi-automatic brain tumor segmentation of glioblastoma; namely BrainVoyagerTM QX, ITK-Snap and 3D Slicer, and to make data available for future reference. Pre-operative, contrast enhanced T1-weighted 1.5 or 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans were obtained in 20 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for glioblastoma. MRI scans were segmented twice in each software package by two investigators. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software agreement was compared by using differences of means with 95 % limits of agreement (LoA), Dice’s similarity coefficients (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD). Time expenditure of segmentations was measured using a stopwatch. Eighteen tumors were included in the analyses. Inter-rater agreement was highest for BrainVoyager with difference of means of 0.19 mL and 95 % LoA from -2.42 mL to 2.81 mL. Between-software agreement and 95 % LoA were very similar for the different software packages. Intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software DSC were ≥ 0.93 in all analyses. Time expenditure was approximately 41 min per segmentation in BrainVoyager, and 18 min per segmentation in both 3D Slicer and ITK-Snap. Our main findings were that there is a high agreement within and between the software packages in terms of small intra-rater, inter-rater and between-software differences of means and high Dice’s similarity coefficients. Time expenditure was highest for BrainVoyager, but all software packages were relatively time-consuming, which may limit usability in an everyday clinical setting."; ; "Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages"; "2016-10-11 00:00:00"; a , , ; "Ingerid Reinertsen" . ; "http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164891"; ; "2022-03-22 00:58:11.962454+00:00"; "2022-03-22 00:58:12.066982+00:00"; ; "http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164891"; "2022-03-22 00:58:11.962454+00:00"; a dct:BibliographicResource, , . dct:conformsTo ; ; a . "anne.line.stensjoen@rohub.com"; "Anne Line Stensjøen"; a . "erik.magnus.berntsen@rohub.com"; "Erik Magnus Berntsen"; a . "even.fyllingen@rohub.com"; "Even Fyllingen"; a . "Geo H."; a . "ingerid.reinertsen@rohub.com"; "Ingerid Reinertsen"; a . "ole.solheim@rohub.com"; "Ole Solheim"; a . } sub:provenance { sub:assertion prov:wasDerivedFrom . } sub:pubinfo { this: dct:created "2026-03-03T16:17:28.369+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime; dct:creator ; npx:introduces ; a npx:RoCrateNanopub; rdfs:label "Glioblastoma Segmentation: Comparison of Three Different Software Packages" . sub:sig npx:hasAlgorithm "RSA"; npx:hasPublicKey "MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAxszSDYX5tuCSkP7UiCtftYPFNQVTjgNu0I5fwdML2DLRDlp0xzmsQXRk8oHuvwGvG1aMjj6cpUqO+0rz2Sg/wvHOgUpkRH8VJXvmlkhafMLCMtUtk5JIx7e+fkzCby+fnmD7kMkGLrT+OaExWwEDmNlCAt0TPKcHSdwsjso2isXjtAsGevyCMke8ufnFYpjs746JES1eNzVnHnn2Kp/lqcm60GM+J8dLgRZp7fX0anW098xhKym6+xXFzqeju0vYRIHBPerv+r7skWxwk+a7Sd8msqVeYEv6NTqnyWvyWb6Yh8cvj04N6qm/T6C5FUPLQhzSaQgMVMU6yLqjPuu9DwIDAQAB"; npx:hasSignature "q7RMdYpszsXP1srWfYHtONvh3umOjj0uGpAnKOmUcuwK1IRy2R3dSBpllQ1wMxKm0LrRhAS7exAlqkfumeArtOHxtTY8Jgt4RhBJsZ/LhMlHpBdUqq7QhvqUYNpbnfxcS3a1Uc4Ug0F0JLCyEFfnpfTNtp33kLR0QvfReIp4eQp9CUOVLAIjsNVYuHpzY701IGcFIYXtrvsnRu6wppeslzxCgsPibtDzxLgsvSd/iT1c2WTjtpMG6/8qpn9munQz679eiip+QnIWsWBpWinJe2zUV7pPCaHbuclC5I5e77fCJ46jeXn7oVxpHauq21gm3k7JbvbbEIAZLN1XO+sPug=="; npx:hasSignatureTarget this:; npx:signedBy . }