Towards Longitudinal Glioma Segmentation: Evaluating combined pre- and post-treatment MRI training data for automated tumor segmentation using nnU-Net
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of key phenotypic regions such as necrosis, contrast enhancement, and edema on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important for understanding disease evolution and treatment response in patients with glioma. Manual delineation is time intensive and not feasible for a clinical workflow. Automating phenotypic region segmentation overcomes many issues with manual segmentation, however, current glioma segmentation datasets focus on pre-treatment, diagnostic scans, where treatment effects and surgical cavities are not present. Thus, existing automatic segmentation models are not applicable to post-treatment imaging that is used for longitudinal evaluation of care. Here, we present a comparison of three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (nnU-Net architecture) trained on large temporally defined pre-treatment, post-treatment, and mixed cohorts. We used a total of 1563 imaging timepoints from 854 patients curated from 13 different institutions as well as diverse public data sets to understand the capabilities and limitations of automatic segmentation on glioma images with different phenotypic and treatment appearance. We assessed the performance of models using Dice coefficients on test cases from each group comparing predictions with manual segmentations generated by trained technicians. We demonstrate that training a combined model can be as effective as models trained on just one temporal group. The results highlight the importance of a diverse training set, that includes images from the course of disease and with effects from treatment, in the creation of a model that can accurately segment glioma MRIs at multiple treatment time points.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".