Cargando…

Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study

OBJECTIVES: To determine the reproducibility and replicability of studies that develop and validate segmentation methods for brain tumours on MRI and that follow established reproducibility criteria; and to evaluate whether the reporting guidelines are sufficient. METHODS: Two eligible validation st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gryska, Emilia, Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella, Jakola, Asgeir Store, Dunås, Tora, Schneiderman, Justin, Heckemann, Rolf A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35851016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059000
_version_ 1784750429691707392
author Gryska, Emilia
Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella
Jakola, Asgeir Store
Dunås, Tora
Schneiderman, Justin
Heckemann, Rolf A
author_facet Gryska, Emilia
Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella
Jakola, Asgeir Store
Dunås, Tora
Schneiderman, Justin
Heckemann, Rolf A
author_sort Gryska, Emilia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To determine the reproducibility and replicability of studies that develop and validate segmentation methods for brain tumours on MRI and that follow established reproducibility criteria; and to evaluate whether the reporting guidelines are sufficient. METHODS: Two eligible validation studies of distinct deep learning (DL) methods were identified. We implemented the methods using published information and retraced the reported validation steps. We evaluated to what extent the description of the methods enabled reproduction of the results. We further attempted to replicate reported findings on a clinical set of images acquired at our institute consisting of high-grade and low-grade glioma (HGG, LGG), and meningioma (MNG) cases. RESULTS: We successfully reproduced one of the two tumour segmentation methods. Insufficient description of the preprocessing pipeline and our inability to replicate the pipeline resulted in failure to reproduce the second method. The replication of the first method showed promising results in terms of Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and sensitivity (Sen) on HGG cases (DSC=0.77, Sen=0.88) and LGG cases (DSC=0.73, Sen=0.83), however, poorer performance was observed for MNG cases (DSC=0.61, Sen=0.71). Preprocessing errors were identified that contributed to low quantitative scores in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Established reproducibility criteria do not sufficiently emphasise description of the preprocessing pipeline. Discrepancies in preprocessing as a result of insufficient reporting are likely to influence segmentation outcomes and hinder clinical utilisation. A detailed description of the whole processing chain, including preprocessing, is thus necessary to obtain stronger evidence of the generalisability of DL-based brain tumour segmentation methods and to facilitate translation of the methods into clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9297223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92972232022-08-09 Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study Gryska, Emilia Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella Jakola, Asgeir Store Dunås, Tora Schneiderman, Justin Heckemann, Rolf A BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVES: To determine the reproducibility and replicability of studies that develop and validate segmentation methods for brain tumours on MRI and that follow established reproducibility criteria; and to evaluate whether the reporting guidelines are sufficient. METHODS: Two eligible validation studies of distinct deep learning (DL) methods were identified. We implemented the methods using published information and retraced the reported validation steps. We evaluated to what extent the description of the methods enabled reproduction of the results. We further attempted to replicate reported findings on a clinical set of images acquired at our institute consisting of high-grade and low-grade glioma (HGG, LGG), and meningioma (MNG) cases. RESULTS: We successfully reproduced one of the two tumour segmentation methods. Insufficient description of the preprocessing pipeline and our inability to replicate the pipeline resulted in failure to reproduce the second method. The replication of the first method showed promising results in terms of Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and sensitivity (Sen) on HGG cases (DSC=0.77, Sen=0.88) and LGG cases (DSC=0.73, Sen=0.83), however, poorer performance was observed for MNG cases (DSC=0.61, Sen=0.71). Preprocessing errors were identified that contributed to low quantitative scores in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Established reproducibility criteria do not sufficiently emphasise description of the preprocessing pipeline. Discrepancies in preprocessing as a result of insufficient reporting are likely to influence segmentation outcomes and hinder clinical utilisation. A detailed description of the whole processing chain, including preprocessing, is thus necessary to obtain stronger evidence of the generalisability of DL-based brain tumour segmentation methods and to facilitate translation of the methods into clinical practice. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9297223/ /pubmed/35851016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059000 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Methods
Gryska, Emilia
Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella
Jakola, Asgeir Store
Dunås, Tora
Schneiderman, Justin
Heckemann, Rolf A
Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study
title Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study
title_full Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study
title_fullStr Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study
title_full_unstemmed Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study
title_short Deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on MRI: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study
title_sort deep learning for automatic brain tumour segmentation on mri: evaluation of recommended reporting criteria via a reproduction and replication study
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35851016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059000
work_keys_str_mv AT gryskaemilia deeplearningforautomaticbraintumoursegmentationonmrievaluationofrecommendedreportingcriteriaviaareproductionandreplicationstudy
AT bjorkmanburtscherisabella deeplearningforautomaticbraintumoursegmentationonmrievaluationofrecommendedreportingcriteriaviaareproductionandreplicationstudy
AT jakolaasgeirstore deeplearningforautomaticbraintumoursegmentationonmrievaluationofrecommendedreportingcriteriaviaareproductionandreplicationstudy
AT dunastora deeplearningforautomaticbraintumoursegmentationonmrievaluationofrecommendedreportingcriteriaviaareproductionandreplicationstudy
AT schneidermanjustin deeplearningforautomaticbraintumoursegmentationonmrievaluationofrecommendedreportingcriteriaviaareproductionandreplicationstudy
AT heckemannrolfa deeplearningforautomaticbraintumoursegmentationonmrievaluationofrecommendedreportingcriteriaviaareproductionandreplicationstudy