mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Negligible effect of brain MRI data preprocessing for tumor segmentation

arXiv 2204.05278 ↗First posted 11 Apr 2022eess.IV cs.CVcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data is heterogeneous due to differences in device manufacturers, scanning protocols, and inter-subject variability. A conventional way to mitigate MR image heterogeneity is to apply preprocessing transformations such as anatomy alignment, voxel resampling, signal intensity equalization, image denoising, and localization of regions of interest. Although a preprocessing pipeline standardizes image appearance, its influence on the quality of image segmentation and on other downstream tasks in deep neural networks has never been rigorously studied. We conduct experiments on three publicly available datasets and evaluate the effect of different preprocessing steps in intra- and inter-dataset training scenarios. Our results demonstrate that most popular standardization steps add no value to the network performance; moreover, preprocessing can hamper model performance. We suggest that image intensity normalization approaches do not contribute to model accuracy because of the reduction of signal variance with image standardization. Finally, we show that the contribution of skull-stripping in data preprocessing is almost negligible if measured in terms of estimated tumor volume. We show that the only essential transformation for accurate deep learning analysis is the unification of voxel spacing across the dataset. In contrast, inter-subjects anatomy alignment in the form of non-rigid atlas registration is not necessary and intensity equalization steps (denoising, bias-field correction and histogram matching) do not improve models' performance. The study code is accessible online https://github.com/MedImAIR/brain-mri-processing-pipeline

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Apr 2022.

Builds on

12 of 69 references.

References · 12

  1. 2021UNETR: Transformers for 3D Medical Image Segmentationcited by 959
  2. 2021The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 Benchmark on Brain Tumor Segmentation and Radiogenomic Classificationcited by 518
  3. 2018Identifying the Best Machine Learning Algorithms for Brain Tumor Segmentation, Progression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the BRATS Challengecited by 511
  4. 2021ResNet strikes back: An improved training procedure in timmcited by 368
  5. 2016Efficient Multi-Scale 3D CNN with Fully Connected CRF for Accurate Brain Lesion Segmentationcited by 263
  6. 2020TorchIO: A Python library for efficient loading, preprocessing, augmentation and patch-based sampling of medical images in deep learningcited by 177
  7. 2019Automated brain extraction of multi-sequence MRI using artificial neural networkscited by 134
  8. 2020nnU-Net for Brain Tumor Segmentationcited by 103
  9. 2021Optimized U-Net for Brain Tumor Segmentationcited by 40
  10. 2019Automatic Segmentation of Vestibular Schwannoma from T2-Weighted MRI by Deep Spatial Attention with Hardness-Weighted Losscited by 25
  11. 2020Domain Shift in Computer Vision models for MRI data analysis: An Overviewcited by 16
  12. 2019Transfer Learning from Partial Annotations for Whole Brain Segmentationcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

2 papers.