Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37801128›Full record

ArticleBrain informatics2023

Deep learning-based algorithm for postoperative glioblastoma MRI segmentation: a promising new tool for tumor burden assessment.

Andrea Bianconi, Luca Francesco Rossi, Marta Bonada, Pietro Zeppa, Elsa Nico, Raffaele De Marco, Paola Lacroce, Fabio Cofano, Francesco Bruno, Giovanni Morana and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Modality redundancy for MRI-based glioblastoma segmentation.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

16 authors.

Andrea BianconiNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy. andrea.bianconi@edu.unito.it.
Luca Francesco RossiDipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Marta BonadaNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Pietro ZeppaNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Elsa NicoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Raffaele De MarcoNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Paola LacroceNeurosurgery, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Fabio CofanoNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Francesco BrunoNeurooncology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giovanni MoranaNeuroradiology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Antonio MelcarneNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Roberta RudaNeurooncology, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Luca MainardiDipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Pietro FiaschiIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico S. Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Diego GarbossaNeurosurgery, Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, via Cherasco 15, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Lia MorraDipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinical and surgical decisions for glioblastoma patients depend on a tumor imaging-based evaluation. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be applied to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment to support clinical practice, surgery planning and prognostic predictions. In a real-world context, the current obstacles for AI are low-quality imaging and postoperative reliability. The aim of this study is to train an automatic algorithm for glioblastoma segmentation on a clinical MRI dataset and to obtain reliable results both pre- and post-operatively.

methodsThe dataset used for this study comprises 237 (71 preoperative and 166 postoperative) MRIs from 71 patients affected by a histologically confirmed Grade IV Glioma. The implemented U-Net architecture was trained by transfer learning to perform the segmentation task on postoperative MRIs. The training was carried out first on BraTS2021 dataset for preoperative segmentation. Performance is evaluated using DICE score (DS) and Hausdorff 95% (H95).

resultsIn preoperative scenario, overall DS is 91.09 (± 0.60) and H95 is 8.35 (± 1.12), considering tumor core, enhancing tumor and whole tumor (ET and edema). In postoperative context, overall DS is 72.31 (± 2.88) and H95 is 23.43 (± 7.24), considering resection cavity (RC), gross tumor volume (GTV) and whole tumor (WT). Remarkably, the RC segmentation obtained a mean DS of 63.52 (± 8.90) in postoperative MRIs.

conclusionsThe performances achieved by the algorithm are consistent with previous literature for both pre-operative and post-operative glioblastoma's MRI evaluation. Through the proposed algorithm, it is possible to reduce the impact of low-quality images and missing sequences.

Indexed as

Deep learningGlioblastomaGliomaMachine learningMagnetic resonance imagingSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID37801128
PMCPMC10558414

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.