CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3,278Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Brain Tumor Segmentation with Deep Neural Networks

Open access
Havaei, Mohammad, Davy, Axel, Warde-Farley, David, Biard, Antoine, Courville, Aaron, Bengio, Yoshua, Pal, Chris, Jodoin, Pierre-Marc +1 more·2015·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1505.03540arXiv 1505.03540
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we present a fully automatic brain tumor segmentation method based on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). The proposed networks are tailored to glioblastomas (both low and high grade) pictured in MR images. By their very nature, these tumors can appear anywhere in the brain and have almost any kind of shape, size, and contrast. These reasons motivate our exploration of a machine learning solution that exploits a flexible, high capacity DNN while being extremely efficient. Here, we give a description of different model choices that we've found to be necessary for obtaining competitive performance. We explore in particular different architectures based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), i.e. DNNs specifically adapted to image data. We present a novel CNN architecture which differs from those traditionally used in computer vision. Our CNN exploits both local features as well as more global contextual features simultaneously. Also, different from most traditional uses of CNNs, our networks use a final layer that is a convolutional implementation of a fully connected layer which allows a 40 fold speed up. We also describe a 2-phase training procedure that allows us to tackle difficulties related to the imbalance of tumor labels. Finally, we explore a cascade architecture in which the output of a basic CNN is treated as an additional source of information for a subsequent CNN. Results reported on the 2013 BRATS test dataset reveal that our architecture improves over the currently published state-of-the-art while being over 30 times faster.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1505.03540

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?

  • Most recent 2D CNN systems proposed for lesion segmentation have a receptive field limited to 33^2 voxels.

    “In comparison, the most recent 2D CNN systems proposed for lesion segmentation ( Havaei et al., 2015; Pereira et al., 2015 ) have a receptive field limited to 33 2 voxels.”

    From Efficient multi-scale 3D CNN with fully connected CRF for accurate brain lesion segmentation (2017) · cites this paper as Havaei et al., 2015

    Section 3 (p. 3) confirms that Havaei et al. process 2D image patches for brain-tumor segmentation. But Section 3.1.1 (p. 5) describes the two pathways as having 7×7 and 13×13 receptive fields, not the claimed 33×33 field. This verdict concerns Havaei et al. only, not the separately cited Pereira et al. paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. [1][1] Alvarez, J.M., Gevers, T., LeCun, Y., Lopez, A.M., 2012. Road scene segmentation from a single image, in: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer Vision - Volume Part VII, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 376-389. -
  2. [2][2] Angelini, E., Clatz, O., E., Konukoglu, E., Capelle, L., Du au, H., 2007. Glioma dynamics and computational models: A review of segmentation, registration, and in silico growth algorithms and their clinical applications 3. Table 3: Comparison of our implemented architectures with the state-of-the-art methods on the BRATS-2013 test set. Table 4: Comparison of our top implemented architectures with the state-of-the-art methods on the BRATS-2013 leaderboard set. -
  3. [4][4] Bauer, S., Nolte, L.P., Reyes, M., 2011. Fully automatic segmentation of brain tumor images using support vector machine classification in combination with hierarchical conditional random field regularization., in: MICCAI, pp. 354-361. -
  4. [6][6] Bengio, Y., 2012. Practical recommendations for gradient-based training of deep architectures, in: Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade. Springer, pp. 437-478. -
  5. [7][7] Bengio, Y., Courville, A., Vincent, P., 2013. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 35, 1798-1828. -
  6. [8][8] Ciresan, D., Giusti, A., Gambardella, L.M., Schmidhuber, J., 2012. Deep neural networks segment neuronal membranes in electron microscopy images, in: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp. 28432851. -
  7. [9][9] Clark, M., Hall, L., Goldgof, D., Velthuizen, R.P., Murtagh, F., Silbiger, M.L., 1998. Automatic tumor segmentation using knowledge-based clustering. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17, 187-201. -
  8. [10][10] Cobzas, D., Birkbeck, N., Schmidt, M., Jgersand, M., Murtha, A., 2007. 3d variational brain tumor segmentation using a high dimensional feature set, in: ICCV, pp. 1-8. -
  9. [11][11] Davy, A., Havaei, M., Warde-Farley, D., Biard, A., Tran, L., Jodoin, P.M., Courville, A., Larochelle, H., Pal, C., Bengio, Y., 2014. Brain tumor segmentation with deep neural networks. in proc of BRATS-MICCAI . -
  10. [12][12] Doyle, S., Vasseur, F., Dojat, M., Forbes, F., 2013. Fully automatic brain tumor segmentation from multiple mr sequences using hidden markov fields and variational em. in proc of BRATS-MICCAI . -
  11. [13][13] Farabet, C., Couprie, C., Najman, L., LeCun, Y., 2013. Learning hierarchical features for scene labeling. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on 35, 1915-1929. -
  12. [16][16] Glorot, X., Bordes, A., Bengio, Y., 2011. Domain adaptation for largescale sentiment classification: A deep learning approach, in: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11), pp. 513-520. -
  13. [17][17] Goodfellow, I.J., Warde-Farley, D., Lamblin, P., Dumoulin, V., Mirza, M., Pascanu, R., Bergstra, J., Bastien, F., Bengio, Y., 2013a. Pylearn2: a machine learning research library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.4214 . - · arXiv
  14. [18][18] Goodfellow, I.J., Warde-Farley, D., Mirza, M., Courville, A., Bengio, Y., 2013b. Maxout networks, in: ICML. -
  15. [19][19] Gotz, M., Weber, C., Blocher, J., Stieltjes, B., Meinzer, H.P., Maier-Hein, K., 2014. Extremely randomized trees based brain tumor segmentation, in: in proc of BRATS Challenge - MICCAI. -
  16. [20][20] Hamamci, A., Kucuk, N., Karaman, K., Engin, K., Unal, G., 2012. Tumor-cut: Segmentation of brain tumors on contrast enhanced mr images for radiosurgery applications. IEEE trans. Medical Imaging 31, 790804. -
  17. [21][21] Hariharan, B., Arbel´ aez, P., Girshick, R., Malik, J., 2014. Simultaneous detection and segmentation, in: Computer Vision-ECCV 2014. Springer, pp. 297-312. -
  18. [22][22] Havaei, M., Jodoin, P.M., Larochelle, H., 2014. E cient interactive brain tumor segmentation as within-brain knn classification, in: International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). -
  19. [23][23] Huang, G.B., Jain, V., 2013. Deep and wide multiscale recursive networks for robust image labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.0354 . - · arXiv
  20. [24][24] Jarrett, K., Kavukcuoglu, K., Ranzato, M., LeCun, Y., 2009. What is the best multi-stage architecture for object recognition?, in: Computer Vision, 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on, IEEE. pp. 21462153. -
  21. [26][26] Kleesiek, J., Biller, A., Urban, G., Kothe, U., Bendszus, M., Hamprecht, F.A., 2014. ilastik for multi-modal brain tumor segmentation. in proc of BRATS-MICCAI . -
  22. [27][27] Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., Hinton, G., 2012. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks, in: NIPS. -
  23. [28][28] Kwon, D., Akbari, H., Da, X., Gaonkar, B., Davatzikos, C., 2014. Multimodal brain tumor image segmentation using glistr, in: in proc of BRATS Challenge - MICCAI. -
  24. [29][29] LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Ha ner, P., 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86, 2278-2324. -
  25. [30][30] Lee, C.H., Schmidt, M., Murtha, A., Bistritz, A., S, J., Greiner, R., 2005. Segmenting brain tumor with conditional random fields and support vector machines, in: in Proc of Workshop on Computer Vision for Biomedical Image Applications. -
  26. [31][31] Long, J., Shelhamer, E., Darrell, T., 2015. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. CVPR (to appear) . -
  27. [32][32] Menze, B., Reyes, M., Leemput, K.V., 2014. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE Trans. on Medical Imaging (accepted) . -
  28. [33][33] N.Tustison, M. Wintermark, C.D., Avants, B., 2013. Ants and ´ arboles, in: in proc of BRATS Challenge - MICCAI. -
  29. [34][34] Parisot, S., Du au, H., Chemouny, S., Paragios, N., 2012. Joint tumor segmentation and dense deformable registration of brain mr images., in: MICCAI, pp. 651-658. -
  30. [35][35] Pinheiro, P., Collobert, R., 2014. Recurrent convolutional neural networks for scene labeling, in: Proceedings of The 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 82-90. -
  31. [38][38] Prastawa, M., Bullitt, E., Ho, S., Gerig, G., 2003. Robust estimation for brain tumor segmentation, in: Medical Image Computing and ComputerAssisted Intervention-MICCAI 2003. Springer, pp. 530-537. -
  32. [39][39] R.Meier, S.Bauer, J.Slotboom, R.Wiest, M.Reyes, 2014. Appearanceand context-sensitive features for brain tumor segmentation, in: in proc of BRATS Challenge - MICCAI. -
  33. [41][41] Schmidt, M., Levner, I., Greiner, R., Murtha, A., Bistritz, A., 2005. Segmenting brain tumors using alignment-based features, in: Int. Conf on Machine Learning and Applications, pp. 6-pp. -
  34. [42][42] Srivastava, N., Hinton, G., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., Salakhutdinov, R., 2014. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research 15, 1929-1958. URL: http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/srivastava14a.html . -
  35. [44][44] Subbanna, N., Precup, D., Collins, L., Arbel, T., 2013. Hierarchical probabilistic gabor and mrf segmentation of brain tumours in mri volumes., in: in proc of MICCAI, pp. 751-758. -
  36. [45][45] Urban, G., Bendszus, M., Hamprecht, F., Kleesiek, J., 2014. Multi-modal brain tumor segmentation using deep convolutional neural networks. in proc of BRATS-MICCAI . -
  37. [46][46] Xing, E.P., Jordan, M.I., Russell, S., 2002. A generalized mean field algorithm for variational inference in exponential families, in: Proceedings of the Nineteenth conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.. pp. 583-591. -
  38. [47][47] Zeiler, M.D., Fergus, R., 2014. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks, in: Computer Vision-ECCV 2014. Springer, pp. 818833. -
  39. [48][48] Zikic, D., Glocker, B., Konukoglu, E., Criminisi, A., Demiralp, C., Shotton, J., Thomas, O., Das, T., Jena, R., Price, S., 2012. Decision forests for tissue-specific segmentation of high-grade gliomas in multi-channel mr, in: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted InterventionMICCAI 2012. Springer, pp. 369-376. -
  40. [49][49] Zikic, D., Ioannou, Y., Brown, M., Criminisi, A., 2014. Segmentation of brain tumor tissues with convolutional neural networks. in proc of BRATS-MICCAI .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Havaei, M., Davy, A., Warde-Farley, D., Biard, A., Courville, A., Bengio, Y., Pal, C., Jodoin, P.-M., & Larochelle, H.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • École Normale Supérieure - PSL (FR)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • École Polytechnique (FR)
Corresponding author
Havaei, Mohammad
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
Volume
35
Pages
18-31
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1505.03540
arXiv
1505.03540
OpenAlex
W1884191083
Cited by
3,278
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 171 · 2025: 238 · 2024: 314 · 2023: 349 · 2022: 426 · 2021: 451 · 2020: 422 · 2019: 422 · 2018: 299 · 2017: 138 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
164.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
brain tumor segmentation, glioblastoma, convolutional neural networks, automatic segmentation, MRI images, class imbalance, two-stage training, cascade structure
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Brain Neoplasms, Glioblastoma, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neural Networks, Computer

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