Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38640464›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2024

Evaluating the relationship between magnetic resonance image quality metrics and deep learning-based segmentation accuracy of brain tumors.

Rajarajeswari Muthusivarajan, Adrian Celaya, Joshua P Yung, James P Long, Satish E Viswanath, Daniel S Marcus, Caroline Chung, David Fuentes

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Rajarajeswari MuthusivarajanDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Adrian CelayaDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Joshua P YungDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
James P LongDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Satish E ViswanathDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Daniel S MarcusDepartment of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Caroline ChungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
David FuentesDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Sustaining the Integrative Imaging Informatics for Cancer Research (I3CR) CenterU24CA258483 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Daniel Scott Marcus · 2021 to 2026
$4.4M
Cardiovascular risk from comprehensive evaluation of the CT calcium score examR01HL165218 · NHLBI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI Sanjay Rajagopalan, DAVID Lynn WILSON · 2023 to 2026
$3.8M
OPtimizing Technology to Improve Medication Adherence and BP Control (OPTIMA-BP).R01NR019585 · NINR · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI STILL, CAROLYN HARMON · 2021 to 2025
$3.4M
Radiomic spatial maps for identifying viable tumor extent on multi-parametric MRI for GlioblastomaR01CA277728 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Manmeet Ahluwalia, Pallavi Tiwari · 2024 to 2026
$3.0M
Quantitative imaging phenotypic classifier for distinguishing radiation effects from tumor recurrence in Glioblastoma .R01CA264017 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Manmeet Ahluwalia, Pallavi Tiwari · 2022 to 2026
$2.9M
RadxTools for assessing tumor treatment response on imagingU01CA248226 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI TIWARI, PALLAVI, VISWANATH, SATISH EASWAR · 2020 to 2022
$1.4M
Self-Management and Resilience Trajectories in African American Adults with HypertensionR21NR020489 · NINR · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI STILL, CAROLYN HARMON · 2022 to 2023
$443k
DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program W81XWH 19-1-0668DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program W81XWH-21-1-0345DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program W81XWH-21-1-0725National Science Foundation 2320952National Science Foundation NSF-2111147NCI NIH HHS 1U01CA248226-01NCI NIH HHS R01 CA264017NCI NIH HHS R01 CA277728NCI NIH HHS U01 CA248226NCI NIH HHS U24 CA258483NCI NIH HHS U24CA258483NHLBI NIH HHS 1R01HL165218-01A1NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL165218NINR NIH HHS 1R01NR019585-01A1NINR NIH HHS R01 NR019585NINR NIH HHS R21 NR020489
6 · The paper itself

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

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansQuality ControlAIbrain tumordeep learningimage qualitysegmentation

Identifiers

PMID38640464
PMCPMC11233231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.