Cargando…

Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Automated brain tumor identification facilitates diagnosis and treatment planning. We evaluate the performance of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) in brain tumor detection and segmentation, using MRI. METHODS: A systematic literature search from January 2000 to M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kouli, Omar, Hassane, Ahmed, Badran, Dania, Kouli, Tasnim, Hossain-Ibrahim, Kismet, Steele, J Douglas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9234754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35769411
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdac081
_version_ 1784736149728657408
author Kouli, Omar
Hassane, Ahmed
Badran, Dania
Kouli, Tasnim
Hossain-Ibrahim, Kismet
Steele, J Douglas
author_facet Kouli, Omar
Hassane, Ahmed
Badran, Dania
Kouli, Tasnim
Hossain-Ibrahim, Kismet
Steele, J Douglas
author_sort Kouli, Omar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Automated brain tumor identification facilitates diagnosis and treatment planning. We evaluate the performance of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) in brain tumor detection and segmentation, using MRI. METHODS: A systematic literature search from January 2000 to May 8, 2021 was conducted. Study quality was assessed using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Detection meta-analysis was performed using a unified hierarchical model. Segmentation studies were evaluated using a random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed for externally validated studies. RESULTS: Of 224 studies included in the systematic review, 46 segmentation and 38 detection studies were eligible for meta-analysis. In detection, DL achieved a lower false positive rate compared to TML; 0.018 (95% CI, 0.011 to 0.028) and 0.048 (0.032 to 0.072) (P < .001), respectively. In segmentation, DL had a higher dice similarity coefficient (DSC), particularly for tumor core (TC); 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.63 (0.56 to 0.71) (P < .001), persisting on sensitivity analysis. Both manual and automated whole tumor (WT) segmentation had “good” (DSC ≥ 0.70) performance. Manual TC segmentation was superior to automated; 0.78 (0.69 to 0.86) and 0.64 (0.53 to 0.74) (P = .014), respectively. Only 30% of studies reported external validation. CONCLUSIONS: The comparable performance of automated to manual WT segmentation supports its integration into clinical practice. However, manual outperformance for sub-compartmental segmentation highlights the need for further development of automated methods in this area. Compared to TML, DL provided superior performance for detection and sub-compartmental segmentation. Improvements in the quality and design of studies, including external validation, are required for the interpretability and generalizability of automated models.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9234754
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92347542022-06-28 Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis Kouli, Omar Hassane, Ahmed Badran, Dania Kouli, Tasnim Hossain-Ibrahim, Kismet Steele, J Douglas Neurooncol Adv Review BACKGROUND: Automated brain tumor identification facilitates diagnosis and treatment planning. We evaluate the performance of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) in brain tumor detection and segmentation, using MRI. METHODS: A systematic literature search from January 2000 to May 8, 2021 was conducted. Study quality was assessed using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Detection meta-analysis was performed using a unified hierarchical model. Segmentation studies were evaluated using a random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed for externally validated studies. RESULTS: Of 224 studies included in the systematic review, 46 segmentation and 38 detection studies were eligible for meta-analysis. In detection, DL achieved a lower false positive rate compared to TML; 0.018 (95% CI, 0.011 to 0.028) and 0.048 (0.032 to 0.072) (P < .001), respectively. In segmentation, DL had a higher dice similarity coefficient (DSC), particularly for tumor core (TC); 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.63 (0.56 to 0.71) (P < .001), persisting on sensitivity analysis. Both manual and automated whole tumor (WT) segmentation had “good” (DSC ≥ 0.70) performance. Manual TC segmentation was superior to automated; 0.78 (0.69 to 0.86) and 0.64 (0.53 to 0.74) (P = .014), respectively. Only 30% of studies reported external validation. CONCLUSIONS: The comparable performance of automated to manual WT segmentation supports its integration into clinical practice. However, manual outperformance for sub-compartmental segmentation highlights the need for further development of automated methods in this area. Compared to TML, DL provided superior performance for detection and sub-compartmental segmentation. Improvements in the quality and design of studies, including external validation, are required for the interpretability and generalizability of automated models. Oxford University Press 2022-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9234754/ /pubmed/35769411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdac081 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Kouli, Omar
Hassane, Ahmed
Badran, Dania
Kouli, Tasnim
Hossain-Ibrahim, Kismet
Steele, J Douglas
Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9234754/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35769411
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdac081
work_keys_str_mv AT kouliomar automatedbraintumoridentificationusingmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hassaneahmed automatedbraintumoridentificationusingmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT badrandania automatedbraintumoridentificationusingmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT koulitasnim automatedbraintumoridentificationusingmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hossainibrahimkismet automatedbraintumoridentificationusingmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT steelejdouglas automatedbraintumoridentificationusingmagneticresonanceimagingasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis