Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31749678›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019

Divide and Conquer: Stratifying Training Data by Tumor Grade Improves Deep Learning-Based Brain Tumor Segmentation.

Michael Rebsamen, Urspeter Knecht, Mauricio Reyes, Roland Wiest, Raphael Meier, Richard McKinley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Michael RebsamenSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Urspeter KnechtInstitute for Surgical Technology and Biomechanics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Mauricio ReyesHealthcare Imaging A.I. Lab, Insel Data Science Center, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Roland WiestSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Raphael MeierSupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Richard McKinleySupport Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is a general assumption in deep learning that more training data leads to better performance, and that models will learn to generalize well across heterogeneous input data as long as that variety is represented in the training set. Segmentation of brain tumors is a well-investigated topic in medical image computing, owing primarily to the availability of a large publicly-available dataset arising from the long-running yearly Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenge. Research efforts and publications addressing this dataset focus predominantly on technical improvements of model architectures and less on properties of the underlying data. Using the dataset and the method ranked third in the BraTS 2018 challenge, we performed experiments to examine the impact of tumor type on segmentation performance. We propose to stratify the training dataset into high-grade glioma (HGG) and low-grade glioma (LGG) subjects and train two separate models. Although we observed only minor gains in overall mean dice scores by this stratification, examining case-wise rankings of individual subjects revealed statistically significant improvements. Compared to a baseline model trained on both HGG and LGG cases, two separately trained models led to better performance in 64.9% of cases (

Indexed as

automatic segmentationbrain tumorsdata stratificationdeep learningmagnetic resonance imagingtraining strategy

Identifiers

PMID31749678
PMCPMC6848279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.