Cited by 15Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment

Deep neural network to locate and segment brain tumors outperformed the expert technicians who created the training data

Open access
Mitchell, Joseph Ross, Kamnitsas, Konstantinos, Singleton, Kyle W., Whitmire, Scott A., Clark-Swanson, Kamala R., Ranjbar, Sara, Rickertsen, Cassandra R., Johnston, Sandra K. +26 more·2020·Journal of Medical Imaging

Abstract

Purpose: Deep learning (DL) algorithms have shown promising results for brain tumor segmentation in MRI. However, validation is required prior to routine clinical use. We report the first randomized and blinded comparison of DL and trained technician segmentations. Approach: We compiled a multi-institutional database of 741 pretreatment MRI exams. Each contained a postcontrast T1-weighted exam, a T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery exam, and at least one technician-derived tumor segmentation. The database included 729 unique patients (470 males and 259 females). Of these exams, 641 were used for training the DL system, and 100 were reserved for testing. We developed a platform to enable qualitative, blinded, controlled assessment of lesion segmentations made by technicians and the DL method. On this platform, 20 neuroradiologists performed 400 side-by-side comparisons of segmentations on 100 test cases. They scored each segmentation between 0 (poor) and 10 (perfect). Agreement between segmentations from technicians and the DL method was also evaluated quantitatively using the Dice coefficient, which produces values between 0 (no overlap) and 1 (perfect overlap). Results: The neuroradiologists gave technician and DL segmentations mean scores of 6.97 and 7.31, respectively (p < 0.00007). The DL method achieved a mean Dice coefficient of 0.87 on the test cases. Conclusions: This was the first objective comparison of automated and human segmentation using a blinded controlled assessment study. Our DL system learned to outperform its “human teachers” and produced output that was better, on average, than its training data.

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 · 10.1117/1.jmi.7.5.055501

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?

  • A deep learning model trained on 641 glioblastoma cases from 8 sites produced higher quality predictions on average than reference standard labels created by radiology expert operators.

    “These findings are aligned with literature observations (on the same use-case)48, where a DL model49 trained on 641 glioblastoma cases from 8 sites produced higher quality predictions on average than those created as reference standard labels by radiology expert operators.”
  • In a blinded side-by-side comparison of 100 sequestered unseen cases judged by 20 board-certified neuroradiologists, perfect or near-perfect reference labels may not be required to produce high-quality prediction systems.

    “Quality was judged by 20 board-certified neuroradiologists, in a blinded side-by-side comparison of 100 sequestered unseen cases, and concluded that perfect or near-perfect reference labels may not be required to produce high-quality prediction systems.”

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 43 · Cited by 15

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]Swanson K. R., Mathematical Modeling of the Growth and Control of Tumors, PhD Thesis, University of Washington (1999).

Authors
Mitchell, J. R., Kamnitsas, K., Singleton, K. W., Whitmire, S. A., Clark-Swanson, K. R., Ranjbar, S., Rickertsen, C. R., Johnston, S. K., Egan, K. M., Rollison, D. E., Arrington, J., Krecke, K. N., Passe, T. J., Verdoorn, J. T., Nagelschneider, A. A., Carr, C. M., Port, J. D., Patton, A., Campeau, N. G., Liebo, G. B., Eckel, L. J., Wood, C. P., Hunt, C. H., Vibhute, P., Nelson, K. D., Hoxworth, J. M., Patel, A. C., Chong, B. W., Ross, J. S., Boxerman, J. L., Vogelbaum, M. A., Hu, L. S., Glocker, B., & Swanson, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Mitchell, Joseph Ross
Venue
Journal of Medical Imaging
Published
2020-10-16
Volume
7
Issue
05
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 2329-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 2329-4310
OpenAlex
W3092979093
Cited by
15
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of medical imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (CA220378, U01CA220378)
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
brain tumor segmentation, deep learning, automatic segmentation, human segmentation, magnetic resonance imaging, Dice coefficient, segmentation validation, training data quality, FLAIR

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