Back

Expert-level pediatric brain tumor segmentation in a limited data scenario with stepwise transfer learning

Boyd, A.; Ye, Z.; Prabhu, S.; Tjong, M.; Zha, Y.; Vajapeyam, S.; Hayat, H.; Chopra, R.; Liu, K.; Nabavizadeh, A.; Resnick, A.; Mueller, S.; Haas-Kogan, D.; Aerts, H.; Poussaint, T.; Kann, B.

2023-06-30 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2023.06.29.23292048 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeArtificial intelligence (AI)-automated tumor delineation for pediatric gliomas would enable real-time volumetric evaluation to support diagnosis, treatment response assessment, and clinical decision-making. Auto-segmentation algorithms for pediatric tumors are rare, due to limited data availability, and algorithms have yet to demonstrate clinical translation. MethodsWe leveraged two datasets from a national brain tumor consortium (n=184) and a pediatric cancer center (n=100) to develop, externally validate, and clinically benchmark deep learning neural networks for pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) segmentation using a novel in-domain, stepwise transfer learning approach. The best model [via Dice similarity coefficient (DSC)] was externally validated and subject to randomized, blinded evaluation by three expert clinicians wherein clinicians assessed clinical acceptability of expert- and AI-generated segmentations via 10-point Likert scales and Turing tests. ResultsThe best AI model utilized in-domain, stepwise transfer learning (median DSC: 0.877 [IQR 0.715-0.914]) versus baseline model (median DSC 0.812 [IQR 0.559-0.888]; p<0.05). On external testing (n=60), the AI model yielded accuracy comparable to inter-expert agreement (median DSC: 0.834 [IQR 0.726-0.901] vs. 0.861 [IQR 0.795-0.905], p=0.13). On clinical benchmarking (n=100 scans, 300 segmentations from 3 experts), the experts rated the AI model higher on average compared to other experts (median Likert rating: 9 [IQR 7-9]) vs. 7 [IQR 7-9], p<0.05 for each). Additionally, the AI segmentations had significantly higher (p<0.05) overall acceptability compared to experts on average (80.2% vs. 65.4%). Experts correctly predicted the origins of AI segmentations in an average of 26.0% of cases. ConclusionsStepwise transfer learning enabled expert-level, automated pediatric brain tumor auto-segmentation and volumetric measurement with a high level of clinical acceptability. This approach may enable development and translation of AI imaging segmentation algorithms in limited data scenarios. SummaryAuthors proposed and utilized a novel stepwise transfer learning approach to develop and externally validate a deep learning auto-segmentation model for pediatric low-grade glioma whose performance and clinical acceptability were on par with pediatric neuroradiologists and radiation oncologists. Key PointsO_LIThere are limited imaging data available to train deep learning tumor segmentation for pediatric brain tumors, and adult-centric models generalize poorly in the pediatric setting. C_LIO_LIStepwise transfer learning demonstrated gains in deep learning segmentation performance (Dice score: 0.877 [IQR 0.715-0.914]) compared to other methodologies and yielded segmentation accuracy comparable to human experts on external validation. C_LIO_LIOn blinded clinical acceptability testing, the model received higher average Likert score rating and clinical acceptability compared to other experts (Transfer-Encoder model vs. average expert: 80.2% vs. 65.4%) C_LIO_LITuring tests showed uniformly low ability of experts ability to correctly identify the origins of Transfer-Encoder model segmentations as AI-generated versus human-generated (mean accuracy: 26%). C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.8%
2
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.7%
3
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.1%
5
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.0%
6
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.7%
8
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
9
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
10
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
11
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.4%
13
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
14
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
15
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
16
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
17
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
18
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
25
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%