ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021
Stratification by Tumor Grade Groups in a Holistic Evaluation of Machine Learning for Brain Tumor Segmentation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Sensor-Oriented Multimodal Medical Data Acquisition and Modeling Framework for Tumor Grading and Treatment Response Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- GETNet: Group Normalization Shuffle and Enhanced Channel Self-Attention Network Based on VT-UNet for Brain Tumor Segmentation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Early prognostication of overall survival for pediatric diffuse midline gliomas using MRI radiomics and machine learning: a two-center study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Simulated MRI Artifacts: Testing Machine Learning Failure Modes.BME frontiers · 2022Article
- Early prognostication of overall survival for pediatric diffuse midline gliomas using MRI radiomics and machine learning: A two-center study.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Tumor volume features predict survival outcomes for patients diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate and consistent segmentation plays an important role in the diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring of both High Grade Glioma (HGG), including Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), and Low Grade Glioma (LGG). Accuracy of segmentation can be affected by the imaging presentation of glioma, which greatly varies between the two tumor grade groups. In recent years, researchers have used Machine Learning (ML) to segment tumor rapidly and consistently, as compared to manual segmentation. However, existing ML validation relies heavily on computing summary statistics and rarely tests the generalizability of an algorithm on clinically heterogeneous data. In this work, our goal is to investigate how to holistically evaluate the performance of ML algorithms on a brain tumor segmentation task. We address the need for rigorous evaluation of ML algorithms and present four axes of model evaluation-diagnostic performance, model confidence, robustness, and data quality. We perform a comprehensive evaluation of a glioma segmentation ML algorithm by stratifying data by specific tumor grade groups (GBM and LGG) and evaluate these algorithms on each of the four axes. The main takeaways of our work are-(1) ML algorithms need to be evaluated on out-of-distribution data to assess generalizability, reflective of tumor heterogeneity. (2) Segmentation metrics alone are limited to evaluate the errors made by ML algorithms and their describe their consequences. (3) Adoption of tools in other domains such as robustness (adversarial attacks) and model uncertainty (prediction intervals) lead to a more comprehensive performance evaluation. Such a holistic evaluation framework could shed light on an algorithm's clinical utility and help it evolve into a more clinically valuable tool.
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.