Deep Learning for Pediatric Posterior Fossa Tumor Detection and Classification: A Multi-Institutional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Posterior fossa tumors are the most common pediatric brain tumors. MR imaging is key to tumor detection, diagnosis, and therapy guidance. We sought to develop an MR imaging–based deep learning model for posterior fossa tumor detection and tumor pathology classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised 617 children (median age, 92 months; 56% males) from 5 pediatric institutions with posterior fossa tumors: diffuse midline glioma of the pons (n = 122), medulloblastoma (n = 272), pilocytic astrocytoma (n = 135), and ependymoma (n = 88). There were 199 controls. Tumor histology served as ground truth except for diffuse midline glioma of the pons, which was primarily diagnosed by MR imaging. A modified ResNeXt-50-32x4d architecture served as the backbone for a multitask classifier model, using T2-weighted MRIs as input to detect the presence of tumor and predict tumor class. Deep learning model performance was compared against that of 4 radiologists. RESULTS: Model tumor detection accuracy exceeded an AUROC of 0.99 and was similar to that of 4 radiologists. Model tumor classification accuracy was 92% with an F1 score of 0.80. The model was most accurate at predicting diffuse midline glioma of the pons, followed by pilocytic astrocytoma and medulloblastoma. Ependymoma prediction was the least accurate. Tumor type classification accuracy and F1 score were higher than those of 2 of the 4 radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: We present a multi-institutional deep learning model for pediatric posterior fossa tumor detection and classification with the potential to augment and improve the accuracy of radiologic diagnosis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".