Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31050074›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2020

Deep learning enables automatic detection and segmentation of brain metastases on multisequence MRI.

Endre Grøvik, Darvin Yi, Michael Iv, Elizabeth Tong, Daniel Rubin, Greg Zaharchuk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

116 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Endre GrøvikDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9925-1162
Darvin YiDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Michael IvDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Elizabeth TongDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Daniel RubinDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Greg ZaharchukDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCEST15LM007033 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SYLVIA KATINA PLEVRITIS · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetecting and segmenting brain metastases is a tedious and time-consuming task for many radiologists, particularly with the growing use of multisequence 3D imaging. PURPOSE: To demonstrate automated detection and segmentation of brain metastases on multisequence MRI using a deep-learning approach based on a fully convolution neural network (CNN). STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: In all, 156 patients with brain metastases from several primary cancers were included. FIELD STRENGTH: 1.5T and 3T. [Correction added on May 24, 2019, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, the first field strength listed was corrected.] SEQUENCE: Pretherapy MR images included pre- and postgadolinium T ASSESSMENT: The ground truth was established by manual delineation by two experienced neuroradiologists. CNN training/development was performed using 100 and 5 patients, respectively, with a 2.5D network based on a GoogLeNet architecture. The results were evaluated in 51 patients, equally separated into those with few (1-3), multiple (4-10), and many (>10) lesions. STATISTICAL TESTS: Network performance was evaluated using precision, recall, Dice/F1 score, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve statistics. For an optimal probability threshold, detection and segmentation performance was assessed on a per-metastasis basis. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the differences between patient subgroups.

resultsThe area under the ROC curve (AUC), averaged across all patients, was 0.98 ± 0.04. The AUC in the subgroups was 0.99 ± 0.01, 0.97 ± 0.05, and 0.97 ± 0.03 for patients having 1-3, 4-10, and >10 metastases, respectively. Using an average optimal probability threshold determined by the development set, precision, recall, and Dice score were 0.79 ± 0.20, 0.53 ± 0.22, and 0.79 ± 0.12, respectively. At the same probability threshold, the network showed an average false-positive rate of 8.3/patient (no lesion-size limit) and 3.4/patient (10 mm DATA

conclusionA deep-learning approach using multisequence MRI can automatically detect and segment brain metastases with high accuracy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:175-182.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAdultAgedBrainBrain NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificitybrain metastasesdeep learningmultisequencesegmentation

Identifiers

PMID31050074
PMCPMC7199496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.