mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Deep Learning versus Classical Regression for Brain Tumor Patient Survival Prediction

arXiv 1811.04907 ↗First posted 12 Nov 2018cs.CV cs.LGcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deep learning for regression tasks on medical imaging data has shown promising results. However, compared to other approaches, their power is strongly linked to the dataset size. In this study, we evaluate 3D-convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and classical regression methods with hand-crafted features for survival time regression of patients with high grade brain tumors. The tested CNNs for regression showed promising but unstable results. The best performing deep learning approach reached an accuracy of 51.5% on held-out samples of the training set. All tested deep learning experiments were outperformed by a Support Vector Classifier (SVC) using 30 radiomic features. The investigated features included intensity, shape, location and deep features. The submitted method to the BraTS 2018 survival prediction challenge is an ensemble of SVCs, which reached a cross-validated accuracy of 72.2% on the BraTS 2018 training set, 57.1% on the validation set, and 42.9% on the testing set. The results suggest that more training data is necessary for a stable performance of a CNN model for direct regression from magnetic resonance images, and that non-imaging clinical patient information is crucial along with imaging information.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2018.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 0; 2024: 1.

2 papers.