Cited by 162Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Multiclass semantic segmentation and quantification of traumatic brain injury lesions on head CT using deep learning: an algorithm development and multicentre validation study

Open access
Monteiro, Miguel, Newcombe, Virginia F J, Mathieu, Francois, Adatia, Krishma, Kamnitsas, Konstantinos, Ferrante, Enzo, Das, Tilak, Whitehouse, Daniel +3 more·2020·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: CT is the most common imaging modality in traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, its conventional use requires expert clinical interpretation and does not provide detailed quantitative outputs, which may have prognostic importance. We aimed to use deep learning to reliably and efficiently quantify and detect different lesion types. METHODS: Patients were recruited between Dec 9, 2014, and Dec 17, 2017, in 60 centres across Europe. We trained and validated an initial convolutional neural network (CNN) on expert manual segmentations (dataset 1). This CNN was used to automatically segment a new dataset of scans, which we then corrected manually (dataset 2). From this dataset, we used a subset of scans to train a final CNN for multiclass, voxel-wise segmentation of lesion types. The performance of this CNN was evaluated on a test subset. Performance was measured for lesion volume quantification, lesion progression, and lesion detection and lesion volume classification. For lesion detection, external validation was done on an independent set of 500 patients from India. FINDINGS: 98 scans from one centre were included in dataset 1. Dataset 2 comprised 839 scans from 38 centres: 184 scans were used in the training subset and 655 in the test subset. Compared with manual reference, CNN-derived lesion volumes showed a mean difference of 0·86 mL (95% CI -5·23 to 6·94) for intraparenchymal haemorrhage, 1·83 mL (-12·01 to 15·66) for extra-axial haemorrhage, 2·09 mL (-9·38 to 13·56) for perilesional oedema, and 0·07 mL (-1·00 to 1·13) for intraventricular haemorrhage. INTERPRETATION: We show the ability of a CNN to separately segment, quantify, and detect multiclass haemorrhagic lesions and perilesional oedema. These volumetric lesion estimates allow clinically relevant quantification of lesion burden and progression, with potential applications for personalised treatment strategies and clinical research in TBI. FUNDING: European Union 7th Framework Programme, Hannelore Kohl Stiftung, OneMind, NeuroTrauma Sciences, Integra Neurosciences, European Research Council Horizon 2020.

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/s2589-7500(20)30085-6

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

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 31 · Cited by 162

Authors
Monteiro, M., Newcombe, V. F. J., Mathieu, F., Adatia, K., Kamnitsas, K., Ferrante, E., Das, T., Whitehouse, D., Rueckert, D., Menon, D. K., & Glocker, B.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
Corresponding author
Monteiro, Miguel
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
2
Issue
6
Pages
e314-e322
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3025870037
Cited by
162
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 5
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • European Commission (602150)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R511547/1)
  • Seventh Framework Programme
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
head CT, lesion quantification, convolutional neural networks, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, perilesional edema, lesion volume, lesion progression, automated lesion detection, multicentre validation
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Deep Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain, Child, Europe, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Semantics, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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