Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36312024›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Clinical implementation of artificial intelligence in neuroradiology with development of a novel workflow-efficient picture archiving and communication system-based automated brain tumor segmentation and radiomic feature extraction.

Mariam Aboian, Khaled Bousabarah, Eve Kazarian, Tal Zeevi, Wolfgang Holler, Sara Merkaj, Gabriel Cassinelli Petersen, Ryan Bahar, Harry Subramanian, Pranay Sunku and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

19 authors.

Mariam AboianDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Khaled BousabarahVisage Imaging, GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Eve KazarianDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Tal ZeeviDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Wolfgang HollerVisage Imaging, GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Sara MerkajDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Gabriel Cassinelli PetersenDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Ryan BaharDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Harry SubramanianDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Pranay SunkuDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Elizabeth SchrickelDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Brain Tumor Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Jitendra BhawnaniDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Mathew ZawalichDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Amit MahajanDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Ajay MalhotraDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Sam PayabvashDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Irena TocinoDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
MingDe LinDepartment of Radiology, Yale University and Visage Imaging, New Haven, CT, United States.
Malte WesterhoffVisage Imaging, GmbH, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Personalized interpretation of medical images is critical for optimum patient care, but current tools available to physicians to perform quantitative analysis of patient's medical images in real time are significantly limited. In this work, we describe a novel platform within PACS for volumetric analysis of images and thus development of large expert annotated datasets in parallel with radiologist performing the reading that are critically needed for development of clinically meaningful AI algorithms. Specifically, we implemented a deep learning-based algorithm for automated brain tumor segmentation and radiomics extraction, and embedded it into PACS to accelerate a supervised, end-to- end workflow for image annotation and radiomic feature extraction. Materials and methods: An algorithm was trained to segment whole primary brain tumors on FLAIR images from multi-institutional glioma BraTS 2021 dataset. Algorithm was validated using internal dataset from Yale New Haven Health (YHHH) and compared (by Dice similarity coefficient [DSC]) to radiologist manual segmentation. A UNETR deep-learning was embedded into Visage 7 (Visage Imaging, Inc., San Diego, CA, United States) diagnostic workstation. The automatically segmented brain tumor was pliable for manual modification. PyRadiomics (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) was natively embedded into Visage 7 for feature extraction from the brain tumor segmentations. Results: UNETR brain tumor segmentation took on average 4 s and the median DSC was 86%, which is similar to published literature but lower than the RSNA ASNR MICCAI BRATS challenge 2021. Finally, extraction of 106 radiomic features within PACS took on average 5.8 ± 0.01 s. The extracted radiomic features did not vary over time of extraction or whether they were extracted within PACS or outside of PACS. The ability to perform segmentation and feature extraction before radiologist opens the study was made available in the workflow. Opening the study in PACS, allows the radiologists to verify the segmentation and thus annotate the study. Conclusion: Integration of image processing algorithms for tumor auto-segmentation and feature extraction into PACS allows curation of large datasets of annotated medical images and can accelerate translation of research into development of personalized medicine applications in the clinic. The ability to use familiar clinical tools to revise the AI segmentations and natively embedding the segmentation and radiomic feature extraction tools on the diagnostic workstation accelerates the process to generate ground-truth data.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AL)brain tumorBraTSfeature extractiongliomamachine learning (ML)PACS (picture archiving and communication system)segmentation

Identifiers

PMID36312024
PMCPMC9606757

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.