Cited by 55Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment

Automated tumor segmentation and brain tissue extraction from multiparametric MRI of pediatric brain tumors: A multi-institutional study

Open access
Fathi Kazerooni, Anahita, Arif, Sherjeel, Madhogarhia, Rachel, Khalili, Nastaran, Haldar, Debanjan, Bagheri, Sina, Familiar, Ariana M, Anderson, Hannah +15 more·2023·Neuro-Oncology Advances

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Brain tumors are the most common solid tumors and the leading cause of cancer-related death among all childhood cancers. Tumor segmentation is essential in surgical and treatment planning, and response assessment and monitoring. However, manual segmentation is time-consuming and has high interoperator variability. We present a multi-institutional deep learning-based method for automated brain extraction and segmentation of pediatric brain tumors based on multi-parametric MRI scans. Methods: Multi-parametric scans (T1w, T1w-CE, T2, and T2-FLAIR) of 244 pediatric patients (n = 215 internal and n = 29 external cohorts) with de novo brain tumors, including a variety of tumor subtypes, were preprocessed and manually segmented to identify the brain tissue and tumor subregions into four tumor subregions, i.e., enhancing tumor (ET), non-enhancing tumor (NET), cystic components (CC), and peritumoral edema (ED). The internal cohort was split into training (n = 151), validation (n = 43), and withheld internal test (n = 21) subsets. DeepMedic, a three-dimensional convolutional neural network, was trained and the model parameters were tuned. Finally, the network was evaluated on the withheld internal and external test cohorts. Results: Dice similarity score (median ± SD) was 0.91 ± 0.10/0.88 ± 0.16 for the whole tumor, 0.73 ± 0.27/0.84 ± 0.29 for ET, 0.79 ± 19/0.74 ± 0.27 for union of all non-enhancing components (i.e., NET, CC, ED), and 0.98 ± 0.02 for brain tissue in both internal/external test sets. Conclusions: Our proposed automated brain extraction and tumor subregion segmentation models demonstrated accurate performance on segmentation of the brain tissue and whole tumor regions in pediatric brain tumors and can facilitate detection of abnormal regions for further clinical measurements.

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 · 10.1093/noajnl/vdad027

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Although a few previous works addressed pediatric brain tumors, their automatic segmentation remains challenging due to a lack of training data and variation in heterogeneous histologic sub-regions.

    “Although, a few previous works addressed pediatric brain tumors [10,14,20], their automatic segmentation remains challenging. This is due to a lack of training data and variation in heterogeneous histologic sub-regions including peritumoral edematous/invaded tissue, necrotic core, and enhancing tumor.”

    From Model Ensemble for Brain Tumor Segmentation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

    The introductory passage (labeled Abstract > Conclusions; page unavailable) describes a few earlier pediatric segmentation studies and limitations in their performance and ability to distinguish subregions. The Methods and Results (pages unavailable) also describe difficulty distinguishing enhancing tumor, non-enhancing tumor, and edema; the Discussion links limited edema examples to class imbalance. The paper does not establish a general lack of training data as the cause of the challenge, and its listed subregions do not include the claim’s necrotic core or invaded tissue. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Yushkevich PA, Pluta J, Wang H, et al. Fast automatic segmentation of hippocampal subfields and medial temporal lobe subregions in 3 Tesla and 7 Tesla T2-weighted MRI. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2016; 12: P126– P127.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fathi Kazerooni, A., Arif, S., Madhogarhia, R., Khalili, N., Haldar, D., Bagheri, S., Familiar, A. M., Anderson, H., Haldar, S., Tu, W., Chul Kim, M., Viswanathan, K., Muller, S., Prados, M., Kline, C., Vidal, L., Aboian, M., Storm, P. B., Resnick, A. C., Ware, J. B., Vossough, A., Davatzikos, C., & Nabavizadeh, A.
Affiliations
  • Center for Data-Driven Discovery in Biomedicine (D3b), Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia , Philadelphia, PA , USA
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Department of Neurology and Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco , San Francisco, CA , USA
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Nabavizadeh, Ali
Venue
Neuro-Oncology Advances
Published
2023-01-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
vdad027-vdad027
ISSN
2632-2498 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4327574677
Cited by
55
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 6
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuro-Oncology Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (3U2CHL156291-02S1)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1TR001880)
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 › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
pediatric brain tumors, tumor segmentation, multiparametric MRI, DeepMedic, 3D convolutional neural networks, peritumoral edema, cystic tumor components, non-enhancing tumor, enhancing tumor, external validation

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