Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41939149›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical physics

Overview of Deep Learning Algorithms and Optimizers for Brain Tumor Segmentation.

Nisha Purohit, Chandi Prasad Bhatt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Nisha PurohitDepartment of Allied Health Sciences, Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University, New Delhi, India.
Chandi Prasad BhattDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sarvodaya Hospital and Research Center, Faridabad, Haryana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain tumor segmentation is a vital process in medical imaging, essential for accurate diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring of brain tumors. Over the years, segmentation techniques have evolved from manual methods to machine learning approaches and, more recently, to deep learning techniques. The advent of deep learning, particularly convolutional neural networks, has revolutionized the field, allowing for end-to-end learning and eliminating the need for manual feature extraction. This review focuses on analyzing different deep learning architectures and explores their performance when optimized using different optimizers. While deep learning techniques have significantly improved segmentation accuracy and robustness, challenges remain, particularly in terms of computational complexity, dataset imbalance, and generalization across diverse clinical settings. Achieved high segmentation accuracy in brain tumor detection, outperforming traditional methods with improved Dice scores, precision, and computational efficiency. Different machine learning and deep learning-based architectures and optimized models yielded superior performance, with Dice scores up to 0.91 and validation accuracy of 98%. Achieved dice scores of 0.84, 0.85, and 0.91 for enhancing tumor, tumor core, and whole tumor, respectively, with a mean intersection over union of 0.8665. Future research directions include exploring transfer learning, improving dataset diversity, and developing explainable artificial intelligence techniques to enhance clinical adoption. The insights from this review emphasize the need for further research to overcome existing limitations and expand the applicability of deep learning models in brain tumor segmentation.

Indexed as

Brain tumor segmentationdeep learningmedical imagingoptimizer

Identifiers

PMID41939149
PMCPMC13046205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.