ArticleMedical physics2024
Evaluating the relationship between magnetic resonance image quality metrics and deep learning-based segmentation accuracy of brain tumors.
Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Impact of Data Quality in Early Post-Operative Glioblastoma Segmentation.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Automated Ventricle Assessment via Three-dimensional Anatomical Reconstruction (AVA-TAR): a computational toolkit for autonomous lateral ventricle assessment in preclinical hydrocephalus models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Multi-modal and Multi-view Cervical Spondylosis Imaging Dataset.Scientific data · 2025Article
- The Evolving Landscape of Radiomics in Gliomas: Insights into Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Research Trends.Cancers · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are known to suffer from a variety of acquisition artifacts as well as equipment-based variations that impact image appearance and segmentation performance. It is still unclear whether a direct relationship exists between magnetic resonance (MR) image quality metrics (IQMs) (e.g., signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise) and segmentation accuracy. PURPOSE: Deep learning (DL) approaches have shown significant promise for automated segmentation of brain tumors on MRI but depend on the quality of input training images. We sought to evaluate the relationship between IQMs of input training images and DL-based brain tumor segmentation accuracy toward developing more generalizable models for multi-institutional data.
methodsWe trained a 3D DenseNet model on the BraTS 2020 cohorts for segmentation of tumor subregions enhancing tumor (ET), peritumoral edematous, and necrotic and non-ET on MRI; with performance quantified via a 5-fold cross-validated Dice coefficient. MRI scans were evaluated through the open-source quality control tool MRQy, to yield 13 IQMs per scan. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed between whole tumor (WT) dice values and IQM measures in the training cohorts to identify quality measures most correlated with segmentation performance. Each selected IQM was used to group MRI scans as "better" quality (BQ) or "worse" quality (WQ), via relative thresholding. Segmentation performance was re-evaluated for the DenseNet model when (i) training on BQ MRI images with validation on WQ images, as well as (ii) training on WQ images, and validation on BQ images. Trends were further validated on independent test sets derived from the BraTS 2021 training cohorts.
resultsFor this study, multimodal MRI scans from the BraTS 2020 training cohorts were used to train the segmentation model and validated on independent test sets derived from the BraTS 2021 cohort. Among the selected IQMs, models trained on BQ images based on inhomogeneity measurements (coefficient of variance, coefficient of joint variation, coefficient of variation of the foreground patch) and the models trained on WQ images based on noise measurement peak signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) yielded significantly improved tumor segmentation accuracy compared to their inverse models.
conclusionsOur results suggest that a significant correlation may exist between specific MR IQMs and DenseNet-based brain tumor segmentation performance. The selection of MRI scans for model training based on IQMs may yield more accurate and generalizable models in unseen validation.
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.