Back

Brain Tumor IDH, 1p/19q, and MGMT Molecular Classification Using MRI-based Deep Learning: Effect of Motion and Motion Correction

Nalawade, S.; Yu, F. F.; Bangalore Yogananda, C. G.; Murugesan, G. K.; Shah, B. R.; Pinho, M. C.; Wagner, B. C.; Mickey, B.; Patel, T. R.; Fei, B.; Madhuranthakam, A. J.; Maldjian, J. A.

2020-06-02 neuroscience
10.1101/2020.06.01.126375 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Deep learning has shown promise for predicting glioma molecular profiles using MR images. Before clinical implementation, ensuring robustness to real-world problems, such as patient motion, is crucial. We sought to evaluate the effects of motion artifact on glioma marker classifier performance and develop a deep learning motion correction network to restore classification accuracies. T2w images and molecular information were retrieved from the TCIA and TCGA databases. Three-fold cross-validation was used to train and test the motion correction network on artifact-corrupted images. We then compared the performance of three glioma marker classifiers (IDH mutation, 1p/19q codeletion, and MGMT methylation) using motion-corrupted and motion-corrected images. Glioma marker classifier performance decreased markedly with increasing motion corruption. Applying motion correction effectively restored classification accuracy for even the most motion-corrupted images. For IDH classification, an accuracy of 99% was achieved, representing a new benchmark in non-invasive image-based IDH classification and exceeding the original performance of the network. Robust motion correction can enable high accuracy in deep learning MRI-based molecular marker classification rivaling tissue-based characterization. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEDeep learning networks have shown promise for predicting molecular profiles of gliomas using MR images. We demonstrate that patient motion artifact, which is frequently encountered in the clinic, can significantly impair the performance of these algorithms. The application of robust motion correction algorithms can restore the performance of these networks, rivaling tissue-based characterization.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.