Cited by 84Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Brain extraction on MRI scans in presence of diffuse glioma: Multi-institutional performance evaluation of deep learning methods and robust modality-agnostic training

Open access
Thakur, Siddhesh, Doshi, Jimit, Pati, Sarthak, Rathore, Saima, Sako, Chiharu, Bilello, Michel, Ha, Sung Min, Shukla, Gaurav +16 more·2020·NeuroImage

Abstract

Brain extraction, or skull-stripping, is an essential pre-processing step in neuro-imaging that has a direct impact on the quality of all subsequent processing and analyses steps. It is also a key requirement in multi-institutional collaborations to comply with privacy-preserving regulations. Existing automated methods, including Deep Learning (DL) based methods that have obtained state-of-the-art results in recent years, have primarily targeted brain extraction without considering pathologically-affected brains. Accordingly, they perform sub-optimally when applied on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scans with apparent pathologies such as brain tumors. Furthermore, existing methods focus on using only T1-weighted MRI scans, even though multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) scans are routinely acquired for patients with suspected brain tumors. In this study, we present a comprehensive performance evaluation of recent deep learning architectures for brain extraction, training models on mpMRI scans of pathologically-affected brains, with a particular focus on seeking a practically-applicable, low computational footprint approach, generalizable across multiple institutions, further facilitating collaborations. We identified a large retrospective multi-institutional dataset of n=3340 mpMRI brain tumor scans, with manually-inspected and approved gold-standard segmentations, acquired during standard clinical practice under varying acquisition protocols, both from private institutional data and public (TCIA) collections. To facilitate optimal utilization of rich mpMRI data, we further introduce and evaluate a novel ‘‘modality-agnostic training’’ technique that can be applied using any available modality, without need for model retraining. Our results indicate that the modality-agnostic approach1 obtains accurate results, providing a generic and practical tool for brain extraction on scans with brain tumors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117081

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BrainMaGe was explicitly developed to address brain scans in the presence of diffuse glioma and considers brain shape as a prior, making it agnostic to the sequence/modality input.

    “For this step we utilized the Brain Mask Generator (BrainMaGe)87, which has been explicitly developed to address brain scans in presence of diffuse glioma and considers brain shape as a prior, hence being agnostic to the sequence/modality input.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 84

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bakas S, Akbari H, Sotiras A, Bilello M, Rozycki M, Kirby J, Freymann J, Farahani K, Davatzikos C, 2017 Segmentation Labels and Radiomic Features for the Pre-operative Scans of the Tcga-Gbm Collection. 10.7937/K9/TCIA.2017.KLXWJJ1Q. PMC5685212 28872634 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bakas S, Akbari H, Sotiras A, Bilello M, Rozycki M, Kirby J, Freymann J, Farahani K, Davatzikos C, 2017 Segmentation Labels and Radiomic Features for the Pre-operative Scans of the Tcga-Lgg Collection. 10.7937/K9/TCIA.2017.GJQ7R0EF. PMC5685212 28872634 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Doshi J, Erus G, Habes M, Davatzikos C, 2019 DeepMRSeg: A Convolutional Deep Neural Network for Anatomy and Abnormality Segmentation on MR Images, arXiv E-Prints arXiv:1907.02110arXiv:1907.02110.
  4. Pedano N, Flanders A, Scarpace L, Mikkelsen T, Eschbacher J, Hermes B,, 2016 Radiology data from the cancer genome atlas low grade glioma [tcga-lgg] collection. Canc. Imag. Archiv 10.7937/K9/TCIA.L4LTD3TK. · DOI
  5. Rockafellar RT, Wets RJ-B, 2005 Variational Analysis, vol. 317 Springer Science &Business Media.
  6. Scarpace L, Mikkelsen T, Cha S, Rao S, Tekchandani S, Gutman D,, 2016 Radiology data from the cancer genome atlas glioblastoma multiforme [tcga-gbm] collection. Canc. Imag. Arch 10.7937/K9/TCIA. RNYFUYE9. · DOI

Authors
Thakur, S., Doshi, J., Pati, S., Rathore, S., Sako, C., Bilello, M., Ha, S. M., Shukla, G., Flanders, A., Kotrotsou, A., Milchenko, M., Liem, S., Alexander, G. S., Lombardo, J., Palmer, J. D., LaMontagne, P., Nazeri, A., Talbar, S., Kulkarni, U., Marcus, D., Colen, R., Davatzikos, C., Erus, G., & Bakas, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Christiana Care Health System (US)
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Bakas, Spyridon
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
220
Pages
117081
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3037636883
Cited by
84
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • The Medicine Forum (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
brain extraction, skull stripping, diffuse glioma, brain tumors, multiparametric MRI, deep learning, multi-institutional collaboration, privacy-preserving data sharing, brain tumor segmentation
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Brain, Brain Neoplasms, Glioma, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Retrospective Studies, Databases, Factual

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review