Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35568820›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2022

An optimal brain tumor segmentation algorithm for clinical MRI dataset with low resolution and non-contiguous slices.

Dheerendranath Battalapalli, B V V S N Prabhakar Rao, P Yogeeswari, C Kesavadas, Venkateswaran Rajagopalan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Dheerendranath BattalapalliDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad, 500078, India.
B V V S N Prabhakar RaoDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad, 500078, India.
P YogeeswariDepartment of Pharmacy, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad, 500078, India.
C KesavadasDepartment of Imaging Sciences and Interventional Radiology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, 695011, India.
Venkateswaran RajagopalanDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad, 500078, India. venkateswaran@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSegmenting brain tumor and its constituent regions from magnetic resonance images (MRI) is important for planning diagnosis and treatment. In clinical routine often an experienced radiologist delineates the tumor regions using multimodal MRI. But this manual segmentation is prone to poor reproducibility and is time consuming. Also, routine clinical scans are usually of low resolution. To overcome these limitations an automated and precise segmentation algorithm based on computer vision is needed.

methodsWe investigated the performance of three widely used segmentation methods namely region growing, fuzzy C means and deep neural networks (deepmedic). We evaluated these algorithms on the BRATS 2018 dataset by choosing randomly 48 patients data (high grade, n = 24 and low grade, n = 24) and on our routine clinical MRI brain tumor dataset (high grade, n = 15 and low grade, n = 28). We measured their performance using dice similarity coefficient, Hausdorff distance and volume measures.

resultsRegion growing method performed very poorly when compared to fuzzy C means (fcm) and deepmedic network. Dice similarity coefficient scores for FCM and deepmedic algorithms were close to each other for BRATS and clinical dataset. The accuracy was below 70% for both these methods in general.

conclusionEven though the deepmedic network showed very high accuracy in BRATS challenge for brain tumor segmentation, it has to be custom trained for the low resolution routine clinical scans. It also requires large training data to be used as a stand-alone algorithm for clinical applications. Nevertheless deepmedic may be a better algorithm for brain tumor segmentation when compared to region growing or FCM.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingReproducibility of ResultsBrain tumorDeep neural networkMRISegmentation

Identifiers

PMID35568820
PMCPMC9107172

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.