Evidence Hub

Performance of machine learning algorithms for glioma segmentation of brain MRI: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

van Kempen EJ, Post M, Mannil M, Witkam RL, Ter Laan M, Patel A, Meijer FJA, Henssen D

European radiology, 2021

734 participants · 54 citations

Abstract

Objectives: Different machine learning algorithms (MLAs) for automated segmentation of gliomas have been reported in the literature. Automated segmentation of different tumor characteristics can be of added value for the diagnostic work-up and treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview and meta-analysis of different MLA methods.

Methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed on the eligible studies describing the segmentation of gliomas. Meta-analysis of the performance was conducted on the reported dice similarity coefficient (DSC) score of both the aggregated results as two subgroups (i.e., high-grade and low-grade gliomas). This study was registered in PROSPERO prior to initiation (CRD42020191033).

Results: After the literature search (n = 734), 42 studies were included in the systematic literature review. Ten studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Overall, the MLAs from the included studies showed an overall DSC score of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). In addition, a DSC score of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87) was observed for the automated glioma segmentation of the high-grade and low-grade gliomas, respectively. However, heterogeneity was considerably high between included studies, and publication bias was observed.

Conclusion: MLAs facilitating automated segmentation of gliomas show good accuracy, which is promising for future implementation in neuroradiology. However, before…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 734 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free