Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32583085›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2020

Semantic segmentation of cerebrospinal fluid and brain volume with a convolutional neural network in pediatric hydrocephalus-transfer learning from existing algorithms.

Florian Grimm, Florian Edl, Susanne R Kerscher, Kay Nieselt, Isabel Gugel, Martin U Schuhmann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Florian GrimmDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tubingen, Germany. florian.grimm@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8862-814X
Florian EdlDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tubingen, Germany.
Susanne R KerscherDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tubingen, Germany.
Kay NieseltIntegrative Transcriptomics, Interfaculty Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Tübingen, Tubingen, Germany.
Isabel GugelDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tubingen, Germany.
Martin U SchuhmannDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tubingen, Germany.
University Children's Hospital Tübingen · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor the segmentation of medical imaging data, a multitude of precise but very specific algorithms exist. In previous studies, we investigated the possibility of segmenting MRI data to determine cerebrospinal fluid and brain volume using a classical machine learning algorithm. It demonstrated good clinical usability and a very accurate correlation of the volumes to the single area determination in a reproducible axial layer. This study aims to investigate whether these established segmentation algorithms can be transferred to new, more generalizable deep learning algorithms employing an extended transfer learning procedure and whether medically meaningful segmentation is possible.

methodsNinety-five routinely performed true FISP MRI sequences were retrospectively analyzed in 43 patients with pediatric hydrocephalus. Using a freely available and clinically established segmentation algorithm based on a hidden Markov random field model, four classes of segmentation (brain, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), background, and tissue) were generated. Fifty-nine randomly selected data sets (10,432 slices) were used as a training data set. Images were augmented for contrast, brightness, and random left/right and X/Y translation. A convolutional neural network (CNN) for semantic image segmentation composed of an encoder and corresponding decoder subnetwork was set up. The network was pre-initialized with layers and weights from a pre-trained VGG 16 model. Following the network was trained with the labeled image data set. A validation data set of 18 scans (3289 slices) was used to monitor the performance as the deep CNN trained. The classification results were tested on 18 randomly allocated labeled data sets (3319 slices) and on a T2-weighted BrainWeb data set with known ground truth.

resultsThe segmentation of clinical test data provided reliable results (global accuracy 0.90, Dice coefficient 0.86), while the CNN segmentation of data from the BrainWeb data set showed comparable results (global accuracy 0.89, Dice coefficient 0.84). The segmentation of the BrainWeb data set with the classical FAST algorithm produced consistent findings (global accuracy 0.90, Dice coefficient 0.87). Likewise, the area development of brain and CSF in the long-term clinical course of three patients was presented.

conclusionUsing the presented methods, we showed that conventional segmentation algorithms can be transferred to new advances in deep learning with comparable accuracy, generating a large number of training data sets with relatively little effort. A clinically meaningful segmentation possibility was demonstrated.

Indexed as

Machine LearningBrainCerebrospinal FluidChildFemaleHumansHydrocephalusImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleSemanticsArea determinationBrain volumeCSF volumeDeep learningImage segmentationPediatric hydrocephalus

Identifiers

PMID32583085
PMCPMC7496050
OpenAlexW3037536255

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.