Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36854923›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2023

AI-Based Automated Lipomatous Tumor Segmentation in MR Images: Ensemble Solution to Heterogeneous Data.

Chih-Chieh Liu, Yasser G Abdelhafez, S Paran Yap, Francesco Acquafredda, Silvia Schirò, Andrew L Wong, Dani Sarohia, Cyrus Bateni, Morgan A Darrow, Michele Guindani and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

20 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

Chih-Chieh LiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Yasser G AbdelhafezDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
S Paran YapDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Francesco AcquafreddaDepartment of Radiology ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy.
Silvia SchiròSection of Radiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery (DiMeC), University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Andrew L WongDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Dani SarohiaDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Cyrus BateniDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Morgan A DarrowPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Michele GuindaniDepartment of Biostatistics, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sonia LeeDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Michelle ZhangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada.
Ahmed W MoawadDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Quinn Kwan-Tai NgDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Layla ShereDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Khaled M ElsayesDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Roberto MaroldiDepartment of Radiology ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy.
Thomas M LinkDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Lorenzo NardoDepartment of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Jinyi QiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. qi@ucdavis.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5428-0322
UC Davis Health · USAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia · ITThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Davis · USCatholic Medical Center · USMcGill University Health Centre · CAUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of California System · USUniversity of Parma · IT

Funding

UC Davis Paul Calabresi K12 Clinical Oncology Research Career Development ProgramK12CA138464 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BIRKELAND, ANDREW CHARLES, LARA, PRIMO N. · 2011 to 2025
$11.4M
TRD3: Data Analytics and Intelligent Systems (AI-ML-DL-Visualization)P41EB032840 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Griffith R. Harsh, Laura Marcu · 2022 to 2026
$6.7M
Optimization of PET ImagingR01EB000194 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI QI, JINYI · 2003 to 2018
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA138464NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB032840NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB000194
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning (DL) has been proposed to automate image segmentation and provide accuracy, consistency, and efficiency. Accurate segmentation of lipomatous tumors (LTs) is critical for correct tumor radiomics analysis and localization. The major challenge of this task is data heterogeneity, including tumor morphological characteristics and multicenter scanning protocols. To mitigate the issue, we aimed to develop a DL-based Super Learner (SL) ensemble framework with different data correction and normalization methods. Pathologically proven LTs on pre-operative T1-weighted/proton-density MR images of 185 patients were manually segmented. The LTs were categorized by tumor locations as distal upper limb (DUL), distal lower limb (DLL), proximal upper limb (PUL), proximal lower limb (PLL), or Trunk (T) and grouped by 80%/9%/11% for training, validation and testing. Six configurations of correction/normalization were applied to data for fivefold-cross-validation trainings, resulting in 30 base learners (BLs). A SL was obtained from the BLs by optimizing SL weights. The performance was evaluated by dice-similarity-coefficient (DSC), sensitivity, specificity, and Hausdorff distance (HD95). For predictions of the BLs, the average DSC, sensitivity, and specificity from the testing data were 0.72 [Formula: see text] 0.16, 0.73 [Formula: see text] 0.168, and 0.99 [Formula: see text] 0.012, respectively, while for SL predictions were 0.80 [Formula: see text] 0.184, 0.78 [Formula: see text] 0.193, and 1.00 [Formula: see text] 0.010. The average HD95 of the BLs were 11.5 (DUL), 23.2 (DLL), 25.9 (PUL), 32.1 (PLL), and 47.9 (T) mm, whereas of SL were 1.7, 8.4, 15.9, 2.2, and 36.6 mm, respectively. The proposed method could improve the segmentation accuracy and mitigate the performance instability and data heterogeneity aiding the differential diagnosis of LTs in real clinical situations.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingArtificial IntelligenceHumans

Identifiers

PMID36854923
PMCPMC10287587
OpenAlexW4322625442

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.