Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35340900›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Magnetic resonance image-based brain tumour segmentation methods: A systematic review.

Jayendra M Bhalodiya, Sarah N Lim Choi Keung, Theodoros N Arvanitis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Clinical evaluation of two glioblastoma delineation methods based on neural networks.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Health 4.0 in the medical sector: a narrative review.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Jayendra M BhalodiyaInstitute of Digital Healthcare, Warwick Manufacturing Group, The University of Warwick, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6540-6835
Sarah N Lim Choi KeungInstitute of Digital Healthcare, Warwick Manufacturing Group, The University of Warwick, UK.
Theodoros N ArvanitisInstitute of Digital Healthcare, Warwick Manufacturing Group, The University of Warwick, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5473-135X

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Image segmentation is an essential step in the analysis and subsequent characterisation of brain tumours through magnetic resonance imaging. In the literature, segmentation methods are empowered by open-access magnetic resonance imaging datasets, such as the brain tumour segmentation dataset. Moreover, with the increased use of artificial intelligence methods in medical imaging, access to larger data repositories has become vital in method development. Purpose: To determine what automated brain tumour segmentation techniques can medical imaging specialists and clinicians use to identify tumour components, compared to manual segmentation. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of 572 brain tumour segmentation studies during 2015-2020. We reviewed segmentation techniques using T1-weighted, T2-weighted, gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, diffusion-weighted and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences. Moreover, we assessed physics or mathematics-based methods, deep learning methods, and software-based or semi-automatic methods, as applied to magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Particularly, we synthesised each method as per the utilised magnetic resonance imaging sequences, study population, technical approach (such as deep learning) and performance score measures (such as Dice score). Statistical tests: We compared median Dice score in segmenting the whole tumour, tumour core and enhanced tumour. Results: We found that T1-weighted, gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging are used the most in various segmentation algorithms. However, there is limited use of perfusion-weighted and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Moreover, we found that the U-Net deep learning technology is cited the most, and has high accuracy (Dice score 0.9) for magnetic resonance imaging-based brain tumour segmentation. Conclusion: U-Net is a promising deep learning technology for magnetic resonance imaging-based brain tumour segmentation. The community should be encouraged to contribute open-access datasets so training, testing and validation of deep learning algorithms can be improved, particularly for diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, where there are limited datasets available.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebrainBrain tumourmagnetic resonance imagingsegmentationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35340900
PMCPMC8943308

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.