ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2022
Weakly Supervised Skull Stripping of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Brain Tumor Patients.
Article in Frontiers in neuroimaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics, licensing, and ethical considerations of openly accessible oral-maxillofacial imaging datasets: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- An evaluation of image-based and statistical techniques for harmonizing brain volume measurements.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Towards Longitudinal Glioma Segmentation: Evaluating combined pre- and post-treatment MRI training data for automated tumor segmentation using nnU-Net.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Automatic brain tumor segmentation is particularly challenging on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with marked pathologies, such as brain tumors, which usually cause large displacement, abnormal appearance, and deformation of brain tissue. Despite an abundance of previous literature on learning-based methodologies for MRI segmentation, few works have focused on tackling MRI skull stripping of brain tumor patient data. This gap in literature can be associated with the lack of publicly available data (due to concerns about patient identification) and the labor-intensive nature of generating ground truth labels for model training. In this retrospective study, we assessed the performance of Dense-Vnet in skull stripping brain tumor patient MRI trained on our large multi-institutional brain tumor patient dataset. Our data included pretreatment MRI of 668 patients from our in-house institutional review board-approved multi-institutional brain tumor repository. Because of the absence of ground truth, we used imperfect automatically generated training labels using SPM12 software. We trained the network using common MRI sequences in oncology: T1-weighted with gadolinium contrast, T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, or both. We measured model performance against 30 independent brain tumor test cases with available manual brain masks. All images were harmonized for voxel spacing and volumetric dimensions before model training. Model training was performed using the modularly structured deep learning platform NiftyNet that is tailored toward simplifying medical image analysis. Our proposed approach showed the success of a weakly supervised deep learning approach in MRI brain extraction even in the presence of pathology. Our best model achieved an average Dice score, sensitivity, and specificity of, respectively, 94.5, 96.4, and 98.5% on the multi-institutional independent brain tumor test set. To further contextualize our results within existing literature on healthy brain segmentation, we tested the model against healthy subjects from the benchmark LBPA40 dataset. For this dataset, the model achieved an average Dice score, sensitivity, and specificity of 96.2, 96.6, and 99.2%, which are, although comparable to other publications, slightly lower than the performance of models trained on healthy patients. We associate this drop in performance with the use of brain tumor data for model training and its influence on brain appearance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.