IMG-22. A DEEP LEARNING MODEL FOR AUTOMATIC POSTERIOR FOSSA PEDIATRIC BRAIN TUMOR SEGMENTATION: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Brain tumors are the most common solid malignancies in childhood, many of which develop in the posterior fossa (PF). Manual tumor measurements are frequently required to optimize registration into surgical navigation systems or for surveillance of nonresectable tumors after therapy. With recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), automated MRI-based tumor segmentation is now feasible without requiring manual measurements. Our goal was to create a deep learning model for automated PF tumor segmentation that can register into navigation systems and provide volume output. METHODS 720 pre-surgical MRI scans from five pediatric centers were divided into training, validation, and testing datasets. The study cohort comprised of four PF tumor types: medulloblastoma, diffuse midline glioma, ependymoma, and brainstem or cerebellar pilocytic astrocytoma. Manual segmentation of the tumors by an attending neuroradiologist served as “ground truth” labels for model training and evaluation. We used 2D Unet, an encoder-decoder convolutional neural network architecture, with a pre-trained ResNet50 encoder. We assessed ventricle segmentation accuracy on a held-out test set using Dice similarity coefficient (0–1) and compared ventricular volume calculation between manual and model-derived segmentations using linear regression. RESULTS Compared to the ground truth expert human segmentation, overall Dice score for model performance accuracy was 0.83 for automatic delineation of the 4 tumor types. CONCLUSIONS In this multi-institutional study, we present a deep learning algorithm that automatically delineates PF tumors and outputs volumetric information. Our results demonstrate applied AI that is clinically applicable, potentially augmenting radiologists, neuro-oncologists, and neurosurgeons for tumor evaluation, surveillance, and surgical planning.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".