Automated Detection of Brain Metastases on <scp>T1</scp>‐Weighted <scp>MRI</scp> Using a Convolutional Neural Network: Impact of Volume Aware Loss and Sampling Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detection of brain metastases (BM) and segmentation for treatment planning could be optimized with machine learning methods. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are promising, but their trade-offs between sensitivity and precision frequently lead to missing small lesions. HYPOTHESIS: Combining volume aware (VA) loss function and sampling strategy could improve BM detection sensitivity. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: A total of 530 radiation oncology patients (55% women) were split into a training/validation set (433 patients/1460 BM) and an independent test set (97 patients/296 BM). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T and 3 T, contrast-enhanced three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted fast gradient echo sequences. ASSESSMENT: Ground truth masks were based on radiotherapy treatment planning contours reviewed by experts. A U-Net inspired model was trained. Three loss functions (Dice, Dice + boundary, and VA) and two sampling methods (label and VA) were compared. Results were reported with Dice scores, volumetric error, lesion detection sensitivity, and precision. A detected voxel within the ground truth constituted a true positive. STATISTICAL TESTS: McNemar's exact test to compare detected lesions between models. Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis to compare volume agreement between predicted and ground truth volumes. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Combining VA loss and VA sampling performed best with an overall sensitivity of 91% and precision of 81%. For BM in the 2.5-6 mm estimated sphere diameter range, VA loss reduced false negatives by 58% and VA sampling reduced it further by 30%. In the same range, the boundary loss achieved the highest precision at 81%, but a low sensitivity (24%) and a 31% Dice loss. DATA CONCLUSION: Considering BM size in the loss and sampling function of CNN may increase the detection sensitivity regarding small BM. Our pipeline relying on a single contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI sequence could reach a detection sensitivity of 91%, with an average of only 0.66 false positives per scan. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".