Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33746330›Full record

ArticleInverse problems2020

WHERE DID THE TUMOR START? AN INVERSE SOLVER WITH SPARSE LOCALIZATION FOR TUMOR GROWTH MODELS.

Shashank Subramanian, Klaudius Scheufele, Miriam Mehl, George Biros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Inverse problems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Inverse Problem Regularization for 3D Multi-Species Tumor Growth Models.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025
    Article
  3. Ensemble Inversion for Brain Tumor Growth Models With Mass Effect.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multiatlas Calibration of Biophysical Brain Tumor Growth Models with Mass Effect.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2020
    Article
  10. Review
  11. IMAGE-DRIVEN BIOPHYSICAL TUMOR GROWTH MODEL CALIBRATION.SIAM journal on scientific computing : a publication of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Shashank SubramanianOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 201 E. 24th Street, Austin, Texas, USA.
Klaudius ScheufeleInstitute for Parallel and Distributed Systems, Universität Stuttgart, Universitatsstraßë38, Stuttgart, Germany.
Miriam MehlInstitute for Parallel and Distributed Systems, Universität Stuttgart, Universitatsstraßë38, Stuttgart, Germany.
George BirosOden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 201 E. 24th Street, Austin, Texas, USA.

Funding

Statistical atlases of brain tumor MRI:do imaging phenotypes predict progression?R01NS042645 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVATZIKOS, CHRISTOS · 2002 to 2024
$8.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS042645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a numerical scheme for solving an inverse problem for parameter estimation in tumor growth models for glioblastomas, a form of aggressive primary brain tumor. The growth model is a reaction-diffusion partial differential equation (PDE) for the tumor concentration. We use a PDE-constrained optimization formulation for the inverse problem. The unknown parameters are the reaction coefficient (proliferation), the diffusion coefficient (infiltration), and the initial condition field for the tumor PDE. Segmentation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans drive the inverse problem where segmented tumor regions serve as partial observations of the tumor concentration. Like most cases in clinical practice, we use data from a single time snapshot. Moreover, the precise time relative to the initiation of the tumor is unknown, which poses an additional difficulty for inversion. We perform a frozen-coefficient spectral analysis and show that the inverse problem is severely ill-posed. We introduce a biophysically motivated regularization on the structure and magnitude of the tumor initial condition. In particular, we assume that the tumor starts at a few locations (enforced with a sparsity constraint on the initial condition of the tumor) and that the initial condition magnitude in the maximum norm is equal to one. We solve the resulting optimization problem using an inexact quasi-Newton method combined with a compressive sampling algorithm for the sparsity constraint. Our implementation uses PETSc and AccFFT libraries. We conduct numerical experiments on synthetic and clinical images to highlight the improved performance of our solver over a previously existing solver that uses standard two-norm regularization for the calibration parameters. The existing solver is unable to localize the initial condition. Our new solver can localize the initial condition and recover infiltration and proliferation. In clinical datasets (for which the ground truth is unknown), our solver results in qualitatively different solutions compared to the two-norm regularized solver.

Indexed as

35K4049M1549M2065K1065N3565Y0592C50Brain tumor growth modelsCompressive samplingParallel algorithmsPDE constrained optimization

Identifiers

PMID33746330
PMCPMC7971430

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.