Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Feature-Based Subtyping and Model Ensemble for Enhanced Brain Tumor Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A weighted ensemble of three deep learning models, with post-processing tuned per radiomic tumor subtype, reports whole-tumor Dice of 0.926 (PED), 0.801 (MEN-RT), and 0.688 (MET) on BraTS 2024 final test sets.

desk verdict Credible BraTS 2024 benchmark results, but the adaptive radiomic post-processing that the paper headlines is not shown to do anything: the tables show no meaningful delta and there is no ablation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04094 v3 pith:U7MAGF6J submitted 2024-12-05 eess.IV cs.CV

Zhifan Jiang , Daniel Capellán-Martín , Abhijeet Parida , Austin Tapp , Xinyang Liu , María J. Ledesma-Carbayo , Syed Muhammad Anwar , Marius George Linguraru This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords braintumorsegmentationMRIdeeplearningpediatrictumorsmeningiomasmetastasesradiomicsmodelensemble
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that brain tumor segmentation improves when a weighted ensemble of complementary deep learning models is combined with post-processing that adapts to the tumor subtype. It derives subtypes from MRI radiomic features—shape and intensity statistics of the largest whole-tumor component—reduced by PCA and clustered with k-means, then learns per-cluster threshold rules that remove small false-positive components and relabel tumor regions. On the BraTS 2024 final test sets, the pipeline reports mean lesion-wise whole-tumor Dice scores of 0.926 for pediatric brain tumors, 0.801 for meningioma radiotherapy volumes, and 0.688 for brain metastases. If the claim holds, the method is a competitive, code-released recipe for multi-tumor segmentation and a template for using imaging phenotypes to tailor segmentation post-processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is adaptive post-processing conditioned on radiomic tumor subtypes. For each task, 14 shape and 93 intensity features per MRI sequence are extracted from the largest connected component of the whole-tumor region, reduced by PCA to 9, 3, and 2 features for PED, MEN-RT, and MET, and grouped into clusters by k-means with the cluster count chosen by silhouette analysis. The ensemble prediction—a weighted average of probability maps from nnU-Net, MedNeXt, and SwinUNETR, with weights set from five-fold cross-validation—is then refined by per-cluster threshold searches that remove small disconnected components and relabel regions whose size ratio to the whole tumor falls below a threshold. For MET, SwinUNETR receives zero weight because of its markedly lower validation performance.

What would settle it

On an external multi-institutional MRI dataset, compare the full pipeline against the same ensemble with a single global post-processing threshold; the central claim fails if the per-subtype version does not improve mean lesion-wise Dice, or if k-means clusters on held-out data do not reproduce the training cluster structure under bootstrap resampling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a weighted ensemble of nnU-Net, MedNeXt, and SwinUNETR—with weights estimated from five-fold cross-validation—combined with MRI radiomic tumor subtyping and adaptive post-processing, enhances the precision and generalizability of brain tumor segmentation across heterogeneous tumor types. The authors report that the weighted ensemble outperforms simple probability averaging, and that per-subtype post-processing reduces false positives better than a one-size-fits-all rule. They demonstrate the pipeline on three BraTS 2024 challenges, reporting final test-set mean lesion-wise Dice scores of 0.926 for pediatric whole tumor, 0.801 for meningioma gross tumor volume, and 0.688 for metastatic whole tumor, with code and a web application released for independent use.

Load-bearing premise

The k-means tumor-subtype clusters are learned from radiomic features of the training set, and the per-cluster post-processing thresholds are applied to test predictions, assuming that both the cluster structure and the optimal thresholds transfer from training and validation to the unseen test distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, weighted ensembling of architecturally diverse models reliably improves segmentation over any single model, even when one architecture underperforms on a task.
  • The radiomic-subtyping plus per-cluster threshold recipe offers a transferable way to handle tumor heterogeneity without hand-crafting rules for each dataset.
  • The reported test-set Dice scores provide a competitive baseline for BraTS 2024 and a practical starting point for volumetric tumor measurement in clinical workflows.
  • Because the code and a demonstration web application are released, the method can be independently reproduced and tested on external clinical datasets, which the authors explicitly call for.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The k-means clusters likely correspond to interpretable imaging phenotypes such as lesion size, enhancement pattern, or edema burden, but the paper does not characterize them; naming these clusters could add clinical insight beyond segmentation accuracy.
  • The adaptive thresholds are learned from cross-validated training predictions, so on a new scanner or site the thresholds may need recalibration; an external multi-site study would show whether the per-subtype gains persist in practice.
  • The same subtype-then-post-process design could be tested on other lesion segmentation problems, such as stroke or lung nodules, where heterogeneity limits one-size-fits-all post-processing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a segmentation pipeline developed for the BraTS 2024 PED, MEN-RT, and MET challenges. The method combines three architectures (nnU-Net, MedNeXt, SwinUNETR) with weighted probability ensembling, and uses MRI radiomic features extracted with PyRadiomics from the largest whole-tumor connected component to cluster tumor subtypes via PCA and k-means. These subtypes are used both for stratified five-fold splitting and for per-subtype adaptive post-processing that removes small disconnected components and relabels regions. The authors present official validation and test lesion-wise Dice and HD95 metrics, with mean test whole-tumor Dice of 0.926 (PED), 0.801 (MEN-RT), and 0.688 (MET), and state that the adaptive pre- and post-processing enhances precision and generalizability.

Significance. If the radiomic-subtyping contribution were supported, the paper would be a useful demonstration of subtype-adaptive ensembling across three tumor domains. The benchmark results are credible: they come from the official BraTS evaluation platform, the authors state they had no access to validation ground truth or test labels, and the source code and a web application are publicly released. The main weakness is attribution: the validation tables do not show that the adaptive post-processing improves over the plain ensemble, and no ablation or stability analysis isolates the radiomic component. The paper is therefore better characterized as a strong challenge report than as evidence for the claimed methodological novelty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5; Tables 1-3] The central claim that the adaptive radiomic pre/post-processing 'enhances the precision and generalizability of segmentation models' is not supported by the validation results. In Table 1, post-processing changes PED lesion-wise Dice from 0.680 to 0.665 for ET (a decrease), leaves WT unchanged at 0.931, and improves only ED from 0.956 to 0.967. In Table 2, MEN-RT GTV Dice is 0.794 before and after post-processing. In Table 3, MET values are essentially unchanged (WT 0.717 to 0.719, TC 0.756 to 0.755). Because no ablation against a global-threshold or no-post-processing baseline is reported, these tables cannot support the abstract's attribution. Please provide such an ablation with confidence intervals or significance testing, or revise the claims accordingly.
  2. [Sections 3.1 and 3.4] The k-means subtype model is trained on radiomic features extracted from the ground-truth whole-tumor masks of the training set, but at inference the subtype assignment uses predicted whole-tumor masks from the ensemble. The paper gives no evidence that the cluster structure transfers from ground-truth to predicted masks or across acquisition sites or protocols, and it reports no cluster-stability metrics. Since the adaptive post-processing thresholds are optimized per cluster on training cross-validation, unstable cluster assignments could make the adaptive step harm rather than help. Please report cluster sizes, within-cluster threshold variability, stability across folds, or a comparison with cluster-agnostic thresholds.
  3. [Equation (1); Section 5] The Discussion states that weighted ensembles outperform simple averaged ensembles, but the paper does not show any comparison between the weighted ensemble and an unweighted average, nor does it quantify uncertainty in the fitted weights. For MET the weight for SwinUNETR is set to zero based on validation, and for PED the weights are nearly equal (0.33/0.34/0.33); the claimed advantage of weighting is therefore not demonstrated by the reported tables. Either include the comparison or soften the statement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, PED paragraph] "constrast-enhanced" should be "contrast-enhanced".
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The table headers contain formatting artifacts such as "V alidation" and "T able"; these should be fixed.
  3. [Section 3.3] The ensemble equation uses "Yensemble" with inconsistent spacing; use "Y_ensemble" and consistent math formatting.
  4. [Throughout] The model name is written inconsistently as "nnUNet" and "nnU-Net"; please standardize.
  5. [Figure 4] The figure legend mentions "SNFH" and labels not discussed in the MET evaluation table or text; clarify the relationship between these visual labels and the reported ET/TC/WT metrics.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical spacing issues (e.g., "T o", "V alidation"); a careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: ensemble weights and post-processing thresholds are fit on training cross-validation, and final scores come from the held-out BraTS platform; self-cited prior methods are provenance, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. Ensemble weights in Eq. (1) and the per-subtype post-processing thresholds are both fit on the training set via five-fold cross-validation, while the reported validation and test scores are produced by the official BraTS platform from models that never saw validation or test labels: the paper states that evaluations were performed automatically with no access to the validation ground truth data and no access to any testing data. The radiomic k-means subtype model is trained on training ground-truth WT and applied to predicted WT at test time; this is an unvalidated transfer assumption, not a definitional equivalence. The self-citations (refs. 7 and 14) document the authors' prior ensemble and adaptive post-processing methods, but the present paper describes those steps in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 and evaluates them empirically, so the results do not reduce to the truth of the citations. Finally, the tables show post-processing changes validation Dice only marginally, which weakens the 'enhances' claim as a matter of empirical support but is the opposite of circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard ML machinery, so the ledger is dominated by tuned constants: the PCA cutoff, the cluster count, the ensemble weights and the per-cluster thresholds are all fit to training or cross-validation data, which the paper discloses. The invented-entity count is zero. The main axiom risk is that training-derived subtype structure transfers to held-out data, which is asserted but not tested.

free parameters (5)
  • PCA explained-variance threshold = 99%
    Reduces 14 shape and 93 intensity radiomic features to 9 (PED), 3 (MEN-RT) and 2 (MET) features; a data-dependent model-selection choice (Section 3.1).
  • k-means cluster count = not reported numerically, chosen per task
    Selected by grid search and silhouette analysis on the training set; determines the number of subtype-specific post-processing regimes (Section 3.1).
  • Ensemble weights wn, wm, ws = 0.33/0.34/0.33 (PED), 0.33/0.33/0.34 (MEN-RT), 0.487/0.513/0 (MET)
    Fit to five-fold cross-validation performance on the training set, Eq. (1), Section 3.3.
  • Post-processing thresholds = not stated in paper, delegated to source code
    Optimal search for minimum component sizes and label-redefinition ratios, performed per subtype and per label on cross-validated predictions (Section 3.4).
  • Radiomics resampling spacing = 0.9375 mm (MEN-RT), 1.0 mm (MET)
    Chosen per task before radiomic feature extraction because features are resolution-sensitive (Section 3.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Radiomic features computed on the largest WT connected component are a sufficient representation of tumor subtype for each case.
    Section 3.1 extracts all radiomics from the largest lesion only; small or multifocal lesions may not be represented.
  • ad hoc to paper k-means subtype structure and per-cluster threshold optima learned on the training distribution transfer to the test distribution.
    Section 3.4 applies training-derived clusters and thresholds to cross-validated and test predictions; no cluster-stability analysis is given.
  • domain assumption BraTS ground-truth labels and the challenge evaluation pipeline are correct and fair.
    All validation and test numbers come from the Synapse platform with no access to ground truth (Section 4.1).
  • standard math Standard tools PyRadiomics, PCA, k-means and silhouette analysis behave as documented.
    Feature extraction and clustering use PyRadiomics and scikit-learn style routines (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Feature-Based Subtyping and Model Ensemble for Enhanced Brain Tumor Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7MAGF6J

@misc{pith2026241204094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Feature-Based Subtyping and Model Ensemble for Enhanced Brain Tumor Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7MAGF6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04094}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate and automatic segmentation of brain tumors in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is essential for quantitative measurements, which play an increasingly important role in clinical diagnosis and prognosis. The International Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge 2024 offers a unique benchmarking opportunity, including various types of brain tumors in both adult and pediatric populations, such as pediatric brain tumors (PED), meningiomas (MEN-RT) and brain metastases (MET), among others. Compared to previous editions, BraTS 2024 has implemented changes to substantially increase clinical relevance, such as refined tumor regions for evaluation. We propose a deep learning-based ensemble approach that integrates state-of-the-art segmentation models. Additionally, we introduce innovative, adaptive pre- and post-processing techniques that employ MRI-based radiomic analyses to differentiate tumor subtypes. Given the heterogeneous nature of the tumors present in the BraTS datasets, this approach enhances the precision and generalizability of segmentation models. On the final testing sets, our method achieved mean lesion-wise Dice similarity coefficients of 0.926, 0.801, and 0.688 for the whole tumor in PED, MEN-RT, and MET, respectively. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in improving segmentation performance and generalizability for various brain tumor types. The source code of our implementation is available at https://github.com/Precision-Medical-Imaging-Group/HOPE-Segmenter-Kids. Additionally, an open-source web-application is accessible at https://segmenter.hope4kids.io/ which uses the docker container aparida12/brats-peds-2024:v20240913 .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04094 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed Method: Unsupervised stratified fold splitting, model training, model ensemble, and adaptive post-processing. Outputs are generated using three state-of-the-art deep learning models, which are processed through ensemble strategies. The ensembled predictions are then refined using a specifically tailored adaptive post-processing step. clustering results. This k-means algorithm was trained on the training set… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative Results: The model ensemble, after post-processing, was eval￾uated on a PED validation case (BraTS-PED-00300-000). Numbers represent the segmentation performance in lesion-wise (LW) Dice for different tumor regions: enhanc￾ing tumor (ET) in red, non-enhancing tumor (NET) in green, cystic components (CC) in blue, edema (ED) in yellow, combined tumor core (TC), and whole tumor (WT) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative Results: The model ensemble, after post-processing, was evaluated on an MEN-RT validation case (BraTS-MEN-RT-0698-1). The number represents the segmentation performance in lesion-wise (LW) Dice for the gross tumor volume (GTV) in red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results: The model ensemble, after post-processing, was evaluated on an MET validation case (BraTS-MET-00908-000). Numbers represent the segmentation performance in lesion-wise (LW) Dice for different tumor regions: enhancing tumor (ET) in blue, combined tu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Improving Pre-trained Adult Glioma Segmentation Models Using only Post-processing Techniques

    cs.CV 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Radiomics-guided thresholds that delete small components and relabel swapped tissue classes improved the BraTS 2025 ranking metric by 14.9% (SSA) and 0.9% (GLI) with zero GPU hours.

  2. Adaptable Segmentation Pipeline for Diverse Brain Tumors with Radiomic-Guided Subtyping and Lesion-Wise Model Ensemble

    cs.CV 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A radiomic-guided subtyping and lesion-wise ensemble pipeline delivers segmentation performance comparable to top entries on diverse BraTS 2025 brain tumor datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cancer Research77(21), e104–e107 (2017)

    vanGriethuysenetal.,J.:ComputationalRadiomicsSystemtoDecodetheRadiographic Phenotype. Cancer Research77(21), e104–e107 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    Baid, U., Ghodasara, S., Mohan, S., et al.: The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmentation and radiogenomic classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Scientific Data4(1), 170117 (sep 2017).https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.117, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.117

    Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., et al.: Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Scientific Data4(1), 170117 (sep 2017).https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.117, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.117

    doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.117 2017

  4. [4]

    The Cancer Imaging Archive (2017)

    Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., et al.: Segmentation Labels and Radiomic Features for the Pre-operative Scans of the TCGA-GBM collection. The Cancer Imaging Archive (2017). https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2017.KLXWJJ1Q

    doi:10.7937/k9/tcia.2017.klxwjj1q 2017

  5. [5]

    The Cancer Imaging Archive (2017)

    Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., et al.: Segmentation Labels and Radiomic Features for the Pre-operative Scans of the TCGA-LGG collection. The Cancer Imaging Archive (2017). https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2017.GJQ7R0EF

    doi:10.7937/k9/tcia.2017.gjq7r0ef 2017

  6. [6]

    Medical Image Analysis 43, 98–109 (2018)

    Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., et al.: Segmentation and radiomics char- acterization of brain tumors. Medical Image Analysis 43, 98–109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.10.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.10.012 2018

  7. [7]

    In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop

    Capellan-Martin, D., Jiang, Z., Parida, A., Liu, X., Lam, V., Nisar, H., Tapp, A., Elsharkawi, S., Ledesma-Carbayo, M., Anwar, S.M., Linguraru, M.G.: Model ensemble for brain tumor segmentation in magnetic resonance imaging. In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop. Springer (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.08232

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.08232 2023

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Fathi Kazerooni, A., Khalili, N., Liu, X., Gandhi, D., Jiang, Z., et al.: The brain tumor segmentation in pediatrics (brats-peds) challenge: Focus on pediatrics (cbtn-connect- dipgr-asnr-miccai brats-peds) (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15009

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: Crimi, A., Bakas, S

    Hatamizadeh, A., Nath, V., Tang, Y., et al.: Swin UNETR: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In: Crimi, A., Bakas, S. (eds.) Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries. pp. 272–284. Springer, Cham (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    In: IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)

    Hatamizadeh, A., Tang, Y., Nath, V., et al.: UNETR: Transformers for 3D Medical Image Segmentation. In: IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). pp. 574–584 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Nature methods18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A., et al.: nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature methods18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    In: 2023 45th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC)

    Jiang, Z., Parida, A., Anwar, S., Tang, Y., Roth, H., Fisher, M., Packer, R., Avery, R., Linguraru, M.: Automatic Visual Acuity Loss Prediction in Children with Optic Pathway Gliomas using Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In: 2023 45th Annual International Conference of the IEEE En...

    2023

  6. [14]

    In: 21st IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2024)

    Jiang, Z., Capellán-Martın, D., Parida, A., Liu, X., Ledesma-Carbayo, M.J., Anwar, S.M., Linguraru, M.G.: Enhancing generalizability in brain tumor segmentation: Model ensemble with adaptive post-processing. In: 21st IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 202...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Medical Image Analysis36, 61–78 (2017).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.10.004 Enhanced Brain Tumor Segmentation in MRI 11

    Kamnitsas, K., Ledig, C., Newcombe, V.F.J., et al.: Efficient multi-scale 3d cnn with fully connected crf for accurate brain lesion segmentation. Medical Image Analysis36, 61–78 (2017).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.10.004 Enhanced Brain Tumor Segmentation in MRI 11

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Nat Mach Intell5, 799–810 (2023)

    Karargyris, A., Umeton, R., Sheller, M., et al.: Federated benchmarking of medical artificial intelligence with medperf. Nat Mach Intell5, 799–810 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kazerooni, A.F., Khalili, N., Liu, X., et al.: The Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge 2023: Focus on Pediatrics (CBTN-CONNECT-DIPGR-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS-PEDs) (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    LaBella, D., Adewole, M., Alonso-Basanta, M., et al.: The ASNR-MICCAI Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge 2023: Intracranial Meningioma (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    LaBella, D., Schumacher, K., Mix, M., Leu, K., McBurney-Lin, S., et al.: Brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge 2024: Meningioma radiotherapy planning automated segmentation (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18383

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging34(10), 1993–2024 (2015).https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694

    Menze, B.H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., et al.: The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging34(10), 1993–2024 (2015).https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694

    2015

  13. [21]

    Moawad, A.W., Janas, A., Baid, U., et al.: The Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS- METS) Challenge 2023: Brain Metastasis Segmentation on Pre-treatment MRI (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical imagesegmentation.In:MedicalImageComputingandComputer-AssistedIntervention– MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18. pp. 234–24...

    2015

  15. [23]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Roy, S., Koehler, G., Ulrich, C., Baumgartner, M., Petersen, J., Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Maier-Hein, K.H.: Mednext: transformer-driven scaling of convnets for medical image segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervent...

    2023

  16. [24]

    CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 74(1), 12–49 (2024)

    Siegel, R.L., Giaquinto, A.N., Jemal, A.: Cancer statistics, 2024. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 74(1), 12–49 (2024). https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.3322/caac.21820, https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.3322/caac.21820

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Tang, Y., Yang, D., Li, W., Roth, H.R., et al.: Self-Supervised Pre-Training of Swin Transformers for 3D Medical Image Analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 20730–20740 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    IEEE Access 8, 131430–131441 (2020)

    Zhou, Y., Li, X., Dong, X., et al.: Multi-modal brain tumor segmenta- tion using deep learning. IEEE Access 8, 131430–131441 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3003934

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.