Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37555156›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2022

Weakly Supervised Skull Stripping of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Brain Tumor Patients.

Sara Ranjbar, Kyle W Singleton, Lee Curtin, Cassandra R Rickertsen, Lisa E Paulson, Leland S Hu, Joseph Ross Mitchell, Kristin R Swanson

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara RanjbarMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Kyle W SingletonMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Lee CurtinMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Cassandra R RickertsenMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Lisa E PaulsonMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Leland S HuMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Joseph Ross MitchellDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry and the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Kristin R SwansonMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USAlberta Health Services · CAMayo Clinic Hospital · US

Funding

Patient-specific predictive modeling that integrates advanced cancer imagingR01CA164371 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KINAHAN, PAUL E., SWANSON, KRISTIN R · 2011 to 2015
$4.5M
Langworthy Diversity Supplement: Image-based models of tumor-immune dynamics in glioblastomaU01CA250481 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ARIZONA · PI CANOLL, PETER, HU, LELAND · 2021 to 2025
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA164371NCI NIH HHS U01 CA250481
6 · The paper itself

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

brain extractionbrain tumorsdeep learningMRIskull strippingweakly supervised learning

Identifiers

PMID37555156
PMCPMC10406204
OpenAlexW4224438326

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.