| Literature DB >> 34667233 |
Cheng-Chung Li1, Meng-Yun Wu1, Ying-Chou Sun2, Hung-Hsun Chen3, Hsiu-Mei Wu2, Ssu-Ting Fang1, Wen-Yuh Chung4, Wan-Yuo Guo2, Henry Horng-Shing Lu5.
Abstract
The extraction of brain tumor tissues in 3D Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) plays an important role in diagnosis before the gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS). In this article, the post-contrast T1 whole-brain MRI images had been collected by Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TVGH) and stored in DICOM format (dated from 1999 to 2018). The proposed method starts with the active contour model to get the region of interest (ROI) automatically and enhance the image contrast. The segmentation models are trained by MRI images with tumors to avoid imbalanced data problem under model construction. In order to achieve this objective, a two-step ensemble approach is used to establish such diagnosis, first, classify whether there is any tumor in the image, and second, segment the intracranial metastatic tumors by ensemble neural networks based on 2D U-Net architecture. The ensemble for classification and segmentation simultaneously also improves segmentation accuracy. The result of classification achieves a F1-measure of [Formula: see text], while the result of segmentation achieves an IoU of [Formula: see text] and a DICE score of [Formula: see text]. Significantly reduce the time for manual labeling from 30 min to 18 s per patient.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34667233 PMCID: PMC8526612 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99984-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The number and proportion of each tumor volume range.
Figure 2Post-contrast T1-weighted MRI per patient.
Figure 3The framework of the experimental design in this article.
Figure 4The result in classification. The left is the ROC curve of the classification. At , middle shows the confusion matrix from validation set, the right is from the test set.
Classification performance.
| Validation set | Test set | |
|---|---|---|
| 66.97% | 69.96% (0.6600, 0.7380) | |
| 73.24% | 82.33% (0.7894, 0.8544) | |
| Validation set | Test set |
Figure 5The result in segmentation. The left is the PR curve of the detection rate of tumors. At the , middle shows the confusion matrix from validation set, the right is from the test set.
Segmentation performance.
| Validation set | Test set | |
|---|---|---|
| 95.00% | 96.20% (0.9314, 0.9876) | |
| 79.17% | 73.08% (0.6568, 0.8077) | |
| 86.36% | 83.06% (0.7704, 0.8886) | |
| 84.43% | 84.83% (0.8259, 0.8665) | |
| 85.68% | 86.21%(0.8413, 0.8790) |
Figure 6Selected the tumor segmentation results compared in slice-by-slice.
Figure 7Visualization the segmentation by the ensemble strategy.