Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29863600›Full record

ArticleInvestigative radiology2018

Clinical Evaluation of a Multiparametric Deep Learning Model for Glioblastoma Segmentation Using Heterogeneous Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data From Clinical Routine.

Michael Perkuhn, Pantelis Stavrinou, Frank Thiele, Georgy Shakirin, Manoj Mohan, Dionysios Garmpis, Christoph Kabbasch, Jan Borggrefe

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Machine learning and deep learning in medicine and neuroimaging.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael PerkuhnClinical Applications Research, Philips Research, Aachen.
Pantelis StavrinouDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Frank ThieleClinical Applications Research, Philips Research, Aachen.
Georgy ShakirinClinical Applications Research, Philips Research, Aachen.
Manoj MohanData Science, Philips Healthcare, Bangalore, India.
Dionysios Garmpis
Christoph Kabbasch
Jan Borggrefe
University Hospital Cologne · DEPhilips (India) · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aims of this study were, first, to evaluate a deep learning-based, automatic glioblastoma (GB) tumor segmentation algorithm on clinical routine data from multiple centers and compare the results to a ground truth, manual expert segmentation, and second, to evaluate the quality of the segmentation results across heterogeneous acquisition protocols of routinely acquired clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations from multiple centers. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe data consisted of preoperative MRI scans (T1, T2, FLAIR, and contrast-enhanced [CE] T1) of 64 patients with an initial diagnosis of primary GB, which were acquired in 15 institutions with varying protocols. All images underwent preprocessing (coregistration, skull stripping, resampling to isotropic resolution, normalization) and were fed into an independently trained deep learning model based on DeepMedic, a multilayer, multiscale convolutional neural network for detection and segmentation of tumor compartments. Automatic segmentation results for the whole tumor, necrosis, and CE tumor were compared with manual segmentations.

resultsWhole tumor and CE tumor compartments were correctly detected in 100% of the cases; necrosis was correctly detected in 91% of the cases. A high segmentation accuracy comparable to interrater variability was achieved for the whole tumor (mean dice similarity coefficient [DSC], 0.86 ± 0.09) and CE tumor (DSC, 0.78 ± 0.15). The DSC for tumor necrosis was 0.62 ± 0.30. We have observed robust segmentation quality over heterogeneous image acquisition protocols, for example, there were no correlations between resolution and segmentation accuracy of the single tumor compartments. Furthermore, no relevant correlation was found between quality of automatic segmentation and volume of interest properties (surface-to-volume ratio and volume).

conclusionsThe proposed approach for automatic segmentation of GB proved to be robust on routine clinical data and showed on all tumor compartments a high automatic detection rate and a high accuracy, comparable to interrater variability. Further work on improvements of the segmentation accuracy for the necrosis compartments should be guided by the evaluation of the clinical relevance.Therefore, we propose this approach as a suitable building block for automatic tumor segmentation to support radiologists or neurosurgeons in the preoperative reading of GB MRI images and characterization of primary GB.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsBrainBrain NeoplasmsFemaleGlioblastomaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29863600
PMCPMC7598095
OpenAlexW2805989241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.