Ashirbani Saha1, Samantha Tso2, Jessica Rabski2, Alireza Sadeghian3, Michael D Cusimano2,4. 1. Division of Neurosurgery, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. ashirbani.saha@unityhealth.to. 2. Division of Neurosurgery, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Computer Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide an overview of fundamental concepts in machine learning (ML), review the literature on ML applications in imaging analysis of pituitary tumors for the last 10 years, and highlight the future directions on potential applications of ML for pituitary tumor patients. METHOD: We presented an overview of the fundamental concepts in ML, its various stages used in healthcare, and highlighted the key components typically present in an imaging-based tumor analysis pipeline. A search was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Google Scholar) to gather research articles from the past 10 years (2009-2019) involving imaging related to pituitary tumor and ML. We grouped the studies by imaging modalities and analyzed the ML tasks in terms of the data inputs, reference standards, methodologies, and limitations. RESULTS: Of the 16 studies included in our analysis, 10 appeared in 2018-2019. Most of the studies utilized retrospective data and followed a semi-automatic ML pipeline. The studies included use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), facial photographs, surgical microscopic video, spectrometry, and spectroscopy imaging. The objectives of the studies covered 14 distinct applications and majority of the studies addressed a binary classification problem. Only five of the 11 MRI-based studies had an external validation or a holdout set to test the performance of a final trained model. CONCLUSION: Through our concise evaluation and comparison of the studies using the concepts presented, we highlight future directions so that potential ML applications using different imaging modalities can be developed to benefit the clinical care of pituitary tumor patients.
PURPOSE: To provide an overview of fundamental concepts in machine learning (ML), review the literature on ML applications in imaging analysis of pituitary tumors for the last 10 years, and highlight the future directions on potential applications of ML for pituitary tumorpatients. METHOD: We presented an overview of the fundamental concepts in ML, its various stages used in healthcare, and highlighted the key components typically present in an imaging-based tumor analysis pipeline. A search was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Google Scholar) to gather research articles from the past 10 years (2009-2019) involving imaging related to pituitary tumor and ML. We grouped the studies by imaging modalities and analyzed the ML tasks in terms of the data inputs, reference standards, methodologies, and limitations. RESULTS: Of the 16 studies included in our analysis, 10 appeared in 2018-2019. Most of the studies utilized retrospective data and followed a semi-automatic ML pipeline. The studies included use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), facial photographs, surgical microscopic video, spectrometry, and spectroscopy imaging. The objectives of the studies covered 14 distinct applications and majority of the studies addressed a binary classification problem. Only five of the 11 MRI-based studies had an external validation or a holdout set to test the performance of a final trained model. CONCLUSION: Through our concise evaluation and comparison of the studies using the concepts presented, we highlight future directions so that potential ML applications using different imaging modalities can be developed to benefit the clinical care of pituitary tumorpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Image processing; Machine learning; Magnetic resonance imaging; Medical imaging; Pituitary adenoma; Pituitary tumor
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Radka Stoyanova; Peter L Choyke; Stephanie Harmon; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-06
Authors: Matea Pavic; Marta Bogowicz; Xaver Würms; Stefan Glatz; Tobias Finazzi; Oliver Riesterer; Johannes Roesch; Leonie Rudofsky; Martina Friess; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Martin Huellner; Isabelle Opitz; Walter Weder; Thomas Frauenfelder; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: R C Petersen; P S Aisen; L A Beckett; M C Donohue; A C Gamst; D J Harvey; C R Jack; W J Jagust; L M Shaw; A W Toga; J Q Trojanowski; M W Weiner Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Antonio Di Ieva; Fabio Rotondo; Luis V Syro; Michael D Cusimano; Kalman Kovacs Journal: Nat Rev Endocrinol Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 43.330
Authors: Andre Esteva; Alexandre Robicquet; Bharath Ramsundar; Volodymyr Kuleshov; Mark DePristo; Katherine Chou; Claire Cui; Greg Corrado; Sebastian Thrun; Jeff Dean Journal: Nat Med Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ashirbani Saha; Michael R Harowicz; Lars J Grimm; Connie E Kim; Sujata V Ghate; Ruth Walsh; Maciej A Mazurowski Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Paul Windisch; Carole Koechli; Susanne Rogers; Christina Schröder; Robert Förster; Daniel R Zwahlen; Stephan Bodis Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 6.575