Automated glioma grading on conventional MRI images using deep convolutional neural networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gliomas are the most common primary tumor of the brain and are classified into grades I-IV of the World Health Organization (WHO), based on their invasively histological appearance. Gliomas grading plays an important role to determine the treatment plan and prognosis prediction. In this study we propose two novel methods for automatic, non-invasively distinguishing low-grade (Grades II and III) glioma (LGG) and high-grade (grade IV) glioma (HGG) on conventional MRI images by using deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs). METHODS: All MRI images have been preprocessed first by rigid image registration and intensity inhomogeneity correction. Both proposed methods consist of two steps: (a) three-dimensional (3D) brain tumor segmentation based on a modification of the popular U-Net model; (b) tumor classification on segmented brain tumor. In the first method, the slice with largest area of tumor is determined and the state-of-the-art mask R-CNN model is employed for tumor grading. To improve the performance of the grading model, a two-dimensional (2D) data augmentation has been implemented to increase both the amount and the diversity of the training images. In the second method, denoted as 3DConvNet, a 3D volumetric CNNs is applied directly on bounding image regions of segmented tumor for classification, which can fully leverage the 3D spatial contextual information of volumetric image data. RESULTS: The proposed schemes were evaluated on The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) low grade glioma (LGG) data, and the Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation (BraTS) Benchmark 2018 training datasets with fivefold cross validation. All data are divided into training, validation, and test sets. Based on biopsy-proven ground truth, the performance metrics of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy are measured on the test sets. The results are 0.935 (sensitivity), 0.972 (specificity), and 0.963 (accuracy) for the 2D Mask R-CNN based method, and 0.947 (sensitivity), 0.968 (specificity), and 0.971 (accuracy) for the 3DConvNet method, respectively. In regard to efficiency, for 3D brain tumor segmentation, the program takes around ten and a half hours for training with 300 epochs on BraTS 2018 dataset and takes only around 50 s for testing of a typical image with a size of 160 × 216 × 176. For 2D Mask R-CNN based tumor grading, the program takes around 4 h for training with around 60 000 iterations, and around 1 s for testing of a 2D slice image with size of 128 × 128. For 3DConvNet based tumor grading, the program takes around 2 h for training with 10 000 iterations, and 0.25 s for testing of a 3D cropped image with size of 64 × 64 × 64, using a DELL PRECISION Tower T7910, with two NVIDIA Titan Xp GPUs. CONCLUSIONS: Two effective glioma grading methods on conventional MRI images using deep convolutional neural networks have been developed. Our methods are fully automated without manual specification of region-of-interests and selection of slices for model training, which are common in traditional machine learning based brain tumor grading methods. This methodology may play a crucial role in selecting effective treatment options and survival predictions without the need for surgical biopsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it