Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Kouli, Omar; Hassane, Ahmed; Badran, Dania; Kouli, Tasnim; Hossain-Ibrahim, Kismet; Steele, J Douglas.
Afiliação
  • Kouli O; School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
  • Hassane A; NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
  • Badran D; NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
  • Kouli T; School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
  • Hossain-Ibrahim K; Division of Neurosurgery, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK.
  • Steele JD; Division of Imaging Science and Technology, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Neurooncol Adv ; 4(1): vdac081, 2022.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35769411
ABSTRACT

Background:

Automated brain tumor identification facilitates diagnosis and treatment planning. We evaluate the performance of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) in brain tumor detection and segmentation, using MRI.

Methods:

A systematic literature search from January 2000 to May 8, 2021 was conducted. Study quality was assessed using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Detection meta-analysis was performed using a unified hierarchical model. Segmentation studies were evaluated using a random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed for externally validated studies.

Results:

Of 224 studies included in the systematic review, 46 segmentation and 38 detection studies were eligible for meta-analysis. In detection, DL achieved a lower false positive rate compared to TML; 0.018 (95% CI, 0.011 to 0.028) and 0.048 (0.032 to 0.072) (P < .001), respectively. In segmentation, DL had a higher dice similarity coefficient (DSC), particularly for tumor core (TC); 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.63 (0.56 to 0.71) (P < .001), persisting on sensitivity analysis. Both manual and automated whole tumor (WT) segmentation had "good" (DSC ≥ 0.70) performance. Manual TC segmentation was superior to automated; 0.78 (0.69 to 0.86) and 0.64 (0.53 to 0.74) (P = .014), respectively. Only 30% of studies reported external validation.

Conclusions:

The comparable performance of automated to manual WT segmentation supports its integration into clinical practice. However, manual outperformance for sub-compartmental segmentation highlights the need for further development of automated methods in this area. Compared to TML, DL provided superior performance for detection and sub-compartmental segmentation. Improvements in the quality and design of studies, including external validation, are required for the interpretability and generalizability of automated models.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Neurooncol Adv Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Neurooncol Adv Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article