ArticleInverse problems2020
WHERE DID THE TUMOR START? AN INVERSE SOLVER WITH SPARSE LOCALIZATION FOR TUMOR GROWTH MODELS.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A single-snapshot inverse solver for two-species graph model of tau pathology spreading in human Alzheimer's disease.Brain informatics · 2025Article
- Inverse Problem Regularization for 3D Multi-Species Tumor Growth Models.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Ensemble Inversion for Brain Tumor Growth Models With Mass Effect.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2023Article
- Predictive digital twin for optimizing patient-specific radiotherapy regimens under uncertainty in high-grade gliomas.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Towards integration of time-resolved confocal microscopy of a 3D in vitro microfluidic platform with a hybrid multiscale model of tumor angiogenesis.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Deep Learning for Reaction-Diffusion Glioma Growth Modeling: Towards a Fully Personalized Model?Cancers · 2022Article
- Modelling glioma progression, mass effect and intracranial pressure in patient anatomy.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Article
- Fully Automatic Calibration of Tumor-Growth Models Using a Single mpMRI Scan.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Integrated Biophysical Modeling and Image Analysis: Application to Neuro-Oncology.Annual review of biomedical engineering · 2020Review
- IMAGE-DRIVEN BIOPHYSICAL TUMOR GROWTH MODEL CALIBRATION.SIAM journal on scientific computing : a publication of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.