mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Brain tumour segmentation with incomplete imaging data

arXiv 2206.06120 ↗First posted 13 Jun 2022cs.CV cs.AI q-bio.TOcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The complex heterogeneity of brain tumours is increasingly recognized to demand data of magnitudes and richness only fully-inclusive, large-scale collections drawn from routine clinical care could plausibly offer. This is a task contemporary machine learning could facilitate, especially in neuroimaging, but its ability to deal with incomplete data common in real world clinical practice remains unknown. Here we apply state-of-the-art methods to large scale, multi-site MRI data to quantify the comparative fidelity of automated tumour segmentation models replicating the various levels of sequence availability observed in the clinical reality. We compare deep learning (nnU-Net-derived) segmentation models with all possible combinations of T1, contrast-enhanced T1, T2, and FLAIR sequences, trained and validated with five-fold cross-validation on the 2021 BraTS-RSNA glioma population of 1251 patients, with further testing on a real-world 50 patient sample diverse in not only MRI scanner and field strength, but a random selection of pre- and post-operative imaging also. Models trained on incomplete imaging data segmented lesions well, often equivalently to those trained on complete data, exhibiting Dice coefficients of 0.907 (single sequence) to 0.945 (full datasets) for whole tumours, and 0.701 (single sequence) to 0.891 (full datasets) for component tissue types. Incomplete data segmentation models could accurately detect enhancing tumour in the absence of contrast imaging, quantifying its volume with an R2 between 0.95-0.97, and were invariant to lesion morphometry. Deep learning segmentation models characterize tumours well when missing data and can even detect enhancing tissue without the use of contrast. This suggests translation to clinical practice, where incomplete data is common, may be easier than hitherto believed, and may be of value in reducing dependence on contrast use.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2022.

Builds on

8 of 42 references.

References · 8

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,604
  2. 2021The Medical Segmentation Decathloncited by 620
  3. 2018Identifying the Best Machine Learning Algorithms for Brain Tumor Segmentation, Progression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the BRATS Challengecited by 508
  4. 2021The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 Benchmark on Brain Tumor Segmentation and Radiogenomic Classificationcited by 507
  5. 2022Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validationcited by 190
  6. 2020nnU-Net for Brain Tumor Segmentationcited by 103
  7. 2022Data Harmonisation for Information Fusion in Digital Healthcare: A State-of-the-Art Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Future Research Directionscited by 19
  8. 2018MRI Super-Resolution using Multi-Channel Total Variationcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

7 papers.