Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37124946›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2023

Brain tumour segmentation with incomplete imaging data.

James K Ruffle, Samia Mohinta, Robert Gray, Harpreet Hyare, Parashkev Nachev

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2023. 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
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Automated Diffusion Analysis for Noninvasive Prediction ofAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Brain tumour genetic network signatures of survival.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

James K RuffleUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6248-7203
Samia MohintaUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Robert GrayUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Harpreet HyareUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4672-3349
Parashkev NachevUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2718-4423
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress in neuro-oncology is increasingly recognized to be obstructed by the marked heterogeneity-genetic, pathological, and clinical-of brain tumours. If the treatment susceptibilities and outcomes of individual patients differ widely, determined by the interactions of many multimodal characteristics, then large-scale, fully-inclusive, richly phenotyped data-including imaging-will be needed to predict them at the individual level. Such data can realistically be acquired only in the routine clinical stream, where its quality is inevitably degraded by the constraints of real-world clinical care. Although contemporary machine learning could theoretically provide a solution to this task, especially in the domain of imaging, its ability to cope with realistic, incomplete, low-quality data is yet to be determined. In the largest and most comprehensive study of its kind, applying state-of-the-art brain tumour segmentation models to large scale, multi-site MRI data of 1251 individuals, here we quantify the comparative fidelity of automated segmentation models drawn from MR data replicating the various levels of completeness observed in real life. We demonstrate that models trained on incomplete data can segment lesions very well, often equivalently to those trained on the full completement of images, exhibiting Dice coefficients of 0.907 (single sequence) to 0.945 (complete set) for whole tumours and 0.701 (single sequence) to 0.891 (complete set) for component tissue types. This finding opens the door both to the application of segmentation models to large-scale historical data, for the purpose of building treatment and outcome predictive models, and their application to real-world clinical care. We further ascertain that segmentation models can accurately detect enhancing tumour in the absence of contrast-enhancing imaging, quantifying the burden of enhancing tumour with an

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep learningmagnetic resonance imagingneuroradiologytumour segmentation

Identifiers

PMID37124946
PMCPMC10144694
OpenAlexW4367330617

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.