Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33666859›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2021

Deep learning approaches for automated classification and segmentation of head and neck cancers and brain tumors in magnetic resonance images: a meta-analysis study.

Samireh Badrigilan, Shahabedin Nabavi, Ahmad Ali Abin, Nima Rostampour, Iraj Abedi, Atefeh Shirvani, Mohsen Ebrahimi Moghaddam

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Head and Neck Tumor Segmentation of MRI from Pre- and Mid-Radiotherapy with Pre-Training, Data Augmentation and Dual Flow UNet.Head and Neck Tumor Segmentation for MR-Guided Applications : First MICCAI Challenge, HNTS-MRG 2024, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2024, Marrakesh, Morocco, October 17, 2024, proceedings · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Samireh BadrigilanDepartment of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Shahabedin NabaviFaculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmad Ali AbinFaculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Nima RostampourDepartment of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. nima.rostampour@kums.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8658-8404
Iraj AbediDepartment of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Atefeh ShirvaniDepartment of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohsen Ebrahimi MoghaddamFaculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences 990688
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDeep learning (DL) has led to widespread changes in automated segmentation and classification for medical purposes. This study is an attempt to use statistical methods to analyze studies related to segmentation and classification of head and neck cancers (HNCs) and brain tumors in MRI images.

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus were searched to retrieve related studies published from January 2016 to January 2020. Studies that evaluated the performance of DL-based models in the segmentation, and/or classification and/or grading of HNCs and/or brain tumors were included. Selected studies for each analysis were statistically evaluated based on the diagnostic performance metrics.

resultsThe search results retrieved 1,664 related studies, of which 30 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The overall performance of DL models for the complete tumor in terms of the pooled Dice score, sensitivity, and specificity was 0.8965 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.76-0.9994), 0.9132 (95% CI: 0.71-0.994) and 0.9164 (95% CI: 0.78-1.00), respectively. The DL methods achieved the highest performance for classifying three types of glioma, meningioma, and pituitary tumors with overall accuracies of 96.01%, 99.73%, and 96.58%, respectively. Stratification of glioma tumors by high and low grading revealed overall accuracies of 94.32% and 94.23% for the DL methods, respectively.

conclusionBased on the obtained results, we can acknowledge the significant ability of DL methods in the mentioned applications. Poor reporting in these studies challenges the analysis process, so it is recommended that future studies report comprehensive results based on different metrics.

Indexed as

Deep LearningBrain NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsGliomaHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingPattern Recognition, AutomatedSoftwareClassificationDeep learningHead & neck tumorsMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysisSegmentation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.