Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39093499›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2024

Modality redundancy for MRI-based glioblastoma segmentation.

Selene De Sutter, Joris Wuts, Wietse Geens, Anne-Marie Vanbinst, Johnny Duerinck, Jef Vandemeulebroucke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. 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

6 authors.

Selene De SutterDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. selene.de.sutter@vub.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1236-1420
Joris WutsDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0770-1742
Wietse GeensDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2496-9209
Anne-Marie VanbinstDepartment of Radiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4867-6133
Johnny DuerinckDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9869-9806
Jef VandemeulebrouckeDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5714-3254

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedBraTSDeep learningGlioblastomaMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)SegmentationUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID39093499
PMCPMC11442599

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.