Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorOttesen, Jon André
dc.contributor.authorYi, Darvin
dc.contributor.authorTong, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.authorIv, Michael
dc.contributor.authorLatysheva, Anna
dc.contributor.authorSaxhaug, Cathrine
dc.contributor.authorJacobsen, Kari Dolven
dc.contributor.authorHelland, Åslaug
dc.contributor.authorEmblem, Kyrre E
dc.contributor.authorRubin, Daniel L.
dc.contributor.authorBjørnerud, Atle
dc.contributor.authorZaharchuk, Greg
dc.contributor.authorGrøvik, Endre
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-23T14:13:48Z
dc.date.available2023-10-23T14:13:48Z
dc.date.created2023-02-19T11:45:11Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Neuroinformatics. 2023, 16 1-12.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1662-5196
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3098179
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Management of patients with brain metastases is often based on manual lesion detection and segmentation by an expert reader. This is a time- and labor-intensive process, and to that end, this work proposes an end-to-end deep learning segmentation network for a varying number of available MRI available sequences. Methods: We adapt and evaluate a 2.5D and a 3D convolution neural network trained and tested on a retrospective multinational study from two independent centers, in addition, nnU-Net was adapted as a comparative benchmark. Segmentation and detection performance was evaluated by: (1) the dice similarity coefficient, (2) a per-metastases and the average detection sensitivity, and (3) the number of false positives. Results: The 2.5D and 3D models achieved similar results, albeit the 2.5D model had better detection rate, whereas the 3D model had fewer false positive predictions, and nnU-Net had fewest false positives, but with the lowest detection rate. On MRI data from center 1, the 2.5D, 3D, and nnU-Net detected 79%, 71%, and 65% of all metastases; had an average per patient sensitivity of 0.88, 0.84, and 0.76; and had on average 6.2, 3.2, and 1.7 false positive predictions per patient, respectively. For center 2, the 2.5D, 3D, and nnU-Net detected 88%, 86%, and 78% of all metastases; had an average per patient sensitivity of 0.92, 0.91, and 0.85; and had on average 1.0, 0.4, and 0.1 false positive predictions per patient, respectively. Discussion/Conclusion: Our results show that deep learning can yield highly accurate segmentations of brain metastases with few false positives in multinational data, but the accuracy degrades for metastases with an area smaller than 0.4 cm2.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherFrontiers Mediaen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fninf.2022.1056068/full
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.title2.5D and 3D segmentation of brain metastases with deep learning on multinational MRI dataen_US
dc.title.alternative2.5D and 3D segmentation of brain metastases with deep learning on multinational MRI dataen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber1-12en_US
dc.source.volume16en_US
dc.source.journalFrontiers in Neuroinformaticsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fninf.2022.1056068
dc.identifier.cristin2127276
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal