Back

Deep Learning for Automated Meningioma Segmentation: Toward Clinical Integration and Workflow Efficiency

Fenney, E.; Muralidharan, L.; Ruffle, J. K.; Pandit, A.; Millip, M.; Hammam, A.; Brookes, T.; Jabeen, F.; Colman, J.; Sarwani, O.; Alattar, K.; Efthymiou, E.; Kallam, N.; Siddiqui, J.; Marcus, H. J.; Nachev, P.; Hyare, H.

2026-05-15 neurology
10.64898/2026.05.12.26352585 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumors in adults, and volumetric assessment increasingly guides surveillance and treatment decisions. Automated segmentation could enable standardized volumetry but requires robust validation. Purpose: To develop a fully automated three-dimensional deep learning model for meningioma segmentation on multiparametric MRI, and to evaluate segmentation accuracy, external generalizability, failure modes, radiologist-rated clinical plausibility, and workflow feasibility. Methods: From 2024 to 2026, this retrospective study trained a custom 3D nnU-Net residual encoder model. Expert segmentations covered enhancing tumor (ET), tumor core (TC), and whole tumor (WT). Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was the primary metric. External validation used an independent single-institution dataset (n = 310 intracranial cases) with incomplete MRI protocols. Failure modes, model equity, and inference time were assessed. A blinded multi-rater study (10 radiologists; 510 cases) rated TC segmentations using a 0-10 Likert scale, analyzed with linear mixed-effects models. Results: Model training used the BraTS Meningioma 2023 dataset (n = 1000; mean age 60.2 {+/-} 14.5; 705 female). In cross-validation, mean DSC was 0.939 for ET, 0.937 for TC, and 0.921 for WT. In external validation, mean DSC was 0.872 for TC and 0.842 for WT, despite heterogeneous protocols and incomplete sequences. Predicted TC volumes correlated strongly with reference volumes in cross-validation (r = 0.995) and external validation (r = 0.971). Most common failure modes were skull base and intraosseous tumors with performance equitable across demographic subgroups. Mean inference time was 1.2 seconds. In blinded evaluation (1120 ratings), model segmentations received higher scores than reference annotations (+0.32 BraTS; +1.38 external validation). Conclusion: A fully automated deep-learning model achieved high meningioma segmentation accuracy across multi-institutional training data and external clinical imaging. In a blinded study, model segmentation quality exceeded reference annotations, and 1.2-second inference supported workflow integration. Prospective evaluation is warranted before routine deployment.

Matching journals

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

1
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.3%
2
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
3
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.6%
5
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
6
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
7
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
8
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
9
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
10
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
11
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
12
Neurocritical Care
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
13
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.1%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
16
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
17
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
18
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.8%
23
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Brain Structure and Function
83 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
26
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
29
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%