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 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neuro-Oncology Advances
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
2
Neuro-Oncology
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
3
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.2%
4
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.3%
5
Neurosurgery
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
6
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.5%
8
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
9
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.8%
10
NeuroImage: Clinical
144 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
11
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.6%
12
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
13
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
17
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
18
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
19
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
20
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
21
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.3%
22
Brain Structure and Function
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
24
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
25
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
26
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
27
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
28
Brain Informatics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
29
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
30
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%