Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32421652›Full record

ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2020

Tissue-specific and interpretable sub-segmentation of whole tumour burden on CT images by unsupervised fuzzy clustering.

Leonardo Rundo, Lucian Beer, Stephan Ursprung, Paula Martin-Gonzalez, Florian Markowetz, James D Brenton, Mireia Crispin-Ortuzar, Evis Sala, Ramona Woitek

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Unified Focal loss: Generalising Dice and cross entropy-based losses to handle class imbalanced medical image segmentation.Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Leonardo RundoDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: lr495@cam.ac.uk.
Lucian BeerDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK; Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, Vienna 1090, Austria. Electronic address: lb795@cam.ac.uk.
Stephan UrsprungDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: su263@cam.ac.uk.
Paula Martin-GonzalezCancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: paula.martingonzalez@cruk.cam.ac.uk.
Florian MarkowetzCancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: florian.markowetz@cruk.cam.ac.uk.
James D BrentonCancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: james.brenton@cruk.cam.ac.uk.
Mireia Crispin-OrtuzarCancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: mireia.crispinortuzar@cruk.cam.ac.uk.
Evis SalaDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: es220@cam.ac.uk.
Ramona WoitekDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK; Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, Vienna 1090, Austria. Electronic address: rw585@cam.ac.uk.
University of Cambridge · GBCancer Research UK Cambridge Center · GBCancer Research UK · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15601Cancer Research UK 19274Cancer Research UK 22905Cancer Research UK 28290Cancer Research UK C9685/A25177
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer typically exhibits genotypic and phenotypic heterogeneity, which can have prognostic significance and influence therapy response. Computed Tomography (CT)-based radiomic approaches calculate quantitative features of tumour heterogeneity at a mesoscopic level, regardless of macroscopic areas of hypo-dense (i.e., cystic/necrotic), hyper-dense (i.e., calcified), or intermediately dense (i.e., soft tissue) portions.

methodWith the goal of achieving the automated sub-segmentation of these three tissue types, we present here a two-stage computational framework based on unsupervised Fuzzy C-Means Clustering (FCM) techniques. No existing approach has specifically addressed this task so far. Our tissue-specific image sub-segmentation was tested on ovarian cancer (pelvic/ovarian and omental disease) and renal cell carcinoma CT datasets using both overlap-based and distance-based metrics for evaluation.

resultsOn all tested sub-segmentation tasks, our two-stage segmentation approach outperformed conventional segmentation techniques: fixed multi-thresholding, the Otsu method, and automatic cluster number selection heuristics for the K-means clustering algorithm. In addition, experiments showed that the integration of the spatial information into the FCM algorithm generally achieves more accurate segmentation results, whilst the kernelised FCM versions are not beneficial. The best spatial FCM configuration achieved average Dice similarity coefficient values starting from 81.94±4.76 and 83.43±3.81 for hyper-dense and hypo-dense components, respectively, for the investigated sub-segmentation tasks.

conclusionsThe proposed intelligent framework could be readily integrated into clinical research environments and provides robust tools for future radiomic biomarker validation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsFuzzy LogicCluster AnalysisImage Processing, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedTumor BurdenComputed tomographyOvarian cancerRadiomicsRenal cell carcinomaTissue-specific segmentationUnsupervised fuzzy clustering

Identifiers

PMID32421652
PMCPMC7248575
OpenAlexW3015838945

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.