ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2024
Modality redundancy for MRI-based glioblastoma segmentation.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 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.
- PF-CMNet: Progressive Frequency-Aware Cross-Modal Network with Missing-Modality Distillation for 3D Brain Tumor Segmentation.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Brain tumor segmentation using deep learning: high performance with minimized MRI data.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Article
- A single model for glioblastoma segmentation with and without T2-FLAIR: independent validation of a targeted dropout strategy.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- GlioMODA: Robust glioma segmentation in clinical routine.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAutomated glioblastoma segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging is generally performed on a four-modality input, including T1, contrast T1, T2 and FLAIR. We hypothesize that information redundancy is present within these image combinations, which can possibly reduce a model's performance. Moreover, for clinical applications, the risk of encountering missing data rises as the number of required input modalities increases. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the relevance and influence of the different modalities used for MRI-based glioblastoma segmentation.
methodsAfter the training of multiple segmentation models based on nnU-Net and SwinUNETR architectures, differing only in their amount and combinations of input modalities, each model was evaluated with regard to segmentation accuracy and epistemic uncertainty.
resultsResults show that T1CE-based segmentation (for enhanced tumor and tumor core) and T1CE-FLAIR-based segmentation (for whole tumor and overall segmentation) can reach segmentation accuracies comparable to the full-input version. Notably, the highest segmentation accuracy for nnU-Net was found for a three-input configuration of T1CE-FLAIR-T1, suggesting the confounding effect of redundant input modalities. The SwinUNETR architecture appears to suffer less from this, where said three-input and the full-input model yielded statistically equal results.
conclusionThe T1CE-FLAIR-based model can therefore be considered as a minimal-input alternative to the full-input configuration. Addition of modalities beyond this does not statistically improve and can even deteriorate accuracy, but does lower the segmentation uncertainty.
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.