Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Adult Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa using Transfer Learning on Stratified Finetuning Data

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 Fine-tuning pretrained deep segmentation models on stratified folds of a small African MRI cohort yields top-ranked glioma segmentation in the BraTS-Africa 2024 challenge.

desk verdict Winning BraTS-Africa 2024 solution with a credible transfer-learning recipe, but the claimed stratified fine-tuning is never isolated from random-split baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04111 v2 pith:I36QUB2C submitted 2024-12-05 eess.IV cs.CV

Abhijeet Parida , Daniel Capellán-Martín , Zhifan Jiang , Austin Tapp , Xinyang Liu , Syed Muhammad Anwar , María J. Ledesma-Carbayo , Marius George Linguraru This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords BraintumorsegmentationMRIDeeplearningGliomaSub-SaharanAfricaTransferLimiteddataModelensembling
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

This paper claims that high-quality glioma segmentation can be achieved in a low-resource setting by taking deep segmentation models pre-trained on a large adult glioma dataset and fine-tuning them on a small, lower-quality African cohort that has been split into stratified folds. The stratification is built from k-means clusters of radiomic features, so each fine-tuning fold represents the same mix of tumor subtypes. On the BraTS-Africa 2024 validation set the approach reports lesion-wise mean Dice scores of 0.870 for enhancing tumor, 0.865 for tumor core, and 0.926 for whole tumor, and it was ranked first among challenge participants. If these numbers hold, the result matters because it suggests that transfer learning, rather than large local annotation efforts, can make automated tumor delineation practical in health systems with scarce imaging resources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is stratified fine-tuning: for each lesion, 14 shape and 93 intensity radiomic features are computed on the whole-tumor mask, reduced by PCA to the components explaining 99% of the variance, and k-means clustered into tumor subtypes, with the number of clusters chosen by silhouette analysis; each fine-tuning fold then draws equal numbers of cases from every cluster. This is intended to keep the small target cohort representative during transfer learning. The second mechanism is a weighted ensemble of nnU-Net and MedNeXt followed by adaptive post-processing: per-cluster thresholds remove small spuriously segmented regions, and an ET/WT ratio threshold relabels enhancing tumor as necrotic core in clusters with low ratios.

What would settle it

Run the same pretraining, the same two models, the same ensemble weights, and the same post-processing, but replace the radiomic-stratified folds with random five-fold splits of the BraTS-Africa training set; if the validation Dice and Hausdorff distance statistics are not meaningfully better under the stratified splits across repeated trials, the paper's central claim about stratified fine-tuning is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a transfer-learning pipeline, rather than a new architecture, is the reason for top performance on the Sub-Saharan glioma benchmark. Starting from nnU-Net and MedNeXt pretrained on the BraTS2023 adult glioma data, the authors fine-tune both models on the BraTS-Africa training set using five folds stratified by k-means clusters of PCA-reduced radiomic features. At inference the two models are combined by a weighted average whose weights, 0.4722 for nnU-Net and 0.5278 for MedNeXt, come from cross-validation performance. A cluster-specific adaptive post-processing step removes small lesion fragments and, when the enhancing-tumor-to-whole-tumor ratio is low, relabels enhancing tumor as necrosis. On the hidden validation set this pipeline exceeds both from-scratch training and each model alone: pre-trained nnU-Net alone reaches 0.868/0.864/0.925 on enhancing tumor, tumor core, and whole tumor, and the final ensemble with post-processing reaches 0.870/0.865/0.926 with a whole-tumor Hausdorff distance of 4.0 mm.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that grouping the small African training cases by MRI-derived tumor clusters and spreading those groups evenly across training folds actually helps the fine-tuning step; the paper reports no comparison against random fold splits, so if that premise is false the method's distinguishing feature disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pre-trained models dominate from-scratch training on the Sub-Saharan dataset for all three tumor regions, with pre-trained nnU-Net beating the from-scratch version by 5.5 Dice points on enhancing tumor.
  • Combining the two fine-tuned models with a weighted ensemble yields a small gain over the better single model, raising whole-tumor Dice from 0.925 to 0.927.
  • Adaptive post-processing leaves Dice essentially unchanged but cuts whole-tumor Hausdorff distance from about 14.0 mm to 4.0 mm, indicating cleaner lesion boundaries without sacrificing overlap.
  • The overall recipe, if replicated, would make transfer learning a viable path for deploying tumor segmentation in other low-resource imaging settings where only a few dozen annotated local cases exist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not isolate the effect of stratification from the effect of cluster-aware post-processing, since the same radiomic clusters drive both; a clean experiment would use random folds with cluster-aware post-processing, and stratified folds with uniform post-processing, to attribute the gains.
  • A natural next test, not reported here, is whether the same stratified-transfer recipe transfers to other lesion types or to the post-treatment MRI task within the same challenge family.
  • If the reported gains persist prospectively, the practical annotation budget for establishing segmentation in a new low-resource site could be much smaller than commonly assumed: a few dozen representative local cases, plus a large unrelated pretraining set, may suffice.
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 presents a transfer-learning pipeline for adult glioma segmentation on the BraTS-Africa 2024 challenge dataset, which contains only 60 training and 35 validation cases of lower-quality MRI from Sub-Saharan Africa. Two segmentation architectures, nnU-Net (v2) and MedNeXt, are pre-trained on BraTS2023-Adult-Glioma and then fine-tuned on BraTS-Africa using five-fold cross-validation. The folds are constructed by k-means clustering of PCA-reduced radiomic features, which the authors call stratified fine-tuning. The two models are combined with a weighted ensemble, followed by an adaptive post-processing step that thresholds small lesions and adjusts ET labels based on the ET/WT ratio. On the challenge validation set, the method reports lesion-wise mean Dice values of 0.870 (ET), 0.865 (TC), and 0.926 (WT), with WT HD95 improving from 14.003 mm to 4.003 mm after post-processing, and the method was ranked first in the challenge. A dockerized version of the algorithm is publicly released.

Significance. If its central claim holds, the paper provides a useful demonstration that transfer learning with relatively simple ensembling and post-processing can generalize to a small, lower-quality, geographically distinct glioma dataset. The evaluation is performed on an external challenge platform without access to validation ground truth, which is a real strength, as is the public release of the dockerized winning algorithm. The comparison against a from-scratch nnU-Net baseline shows a clear practical gain. However, the paper's stated novelty, the stratified fine-tuning strategy, is not experimentally isolated: no comparison against randomly constructed folds is reported, so the specific contribution of the stratification is currently an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 4.3, Table 3] The distinguishing contribution of the paper, stratified fine-tuning based on k-means radiomic clusters, is never tested against an alternative. All five-fold splits in Table 3 use the same k-means stratification, and the table varies pre-training, architecture, ensembling, and post-processing, but never the fold-construction mechanism. Adding a random five-fold split (or a center- or institution-stratified split) for at least the nnU-Net fine-tuning and the final ensemble would show whether the reported gains come from stratification or from transfer learning, ensembling, and post-processing. Without this comparison, the central claim stated in the title and abstract is unsupported.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 3] The post-processing row reports WT HD95 improving from 14.003 mm to 4.003 mm while the WT Dice remains exactly 0.926. Such a large Hausdorff-distance reduction with no corresponding Dice change is implausible without a mechanism explanation, since removing small disconnected components would typically change both metrics if it changes the lesion boundary. Please verify the reported numbers, clarify what the post-processing actually changes for the WT region, and provide corrected values or an explicit description of the WT-specific post-processing step.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table 3] The validation set contains only 35 cases, and all reported results are point estimates from a single evaluation run. No confidence intervals, per-fold standard deviations, or significance tests are given. Although challenge-platform evaluation is a reasonable practical benchmark, the small validation size and the multiple tuned hyperparameters (ensemble weights, lesion thresholds, ET/WT thresholds, number of clusters) mean that the differences between the ensemble (0.870/0.865/0.927) and the individual nnU-Net (0.868/0.864/0.925) are within plausible noise. Reporting per-fold results or bootstrap confidence intervals would strengthen the quantitative claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and Section 3.1] The phrase 'Stratified Finetuning Data' in the title is misleading: the fine-tuning dataset itself is not stratified; rather, the five cross-validation folds are constructed from k-means clusters of radiomic features. Consider using 'stratified fine-tuning folds' or similar wording.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text states that PCA selected 9 features that explained 99% of the variance, but later the post-processing section says PCA identified 8 clusters. The relationship between the optimal number of k-means clusters (used for folds) and the 8 post-processing clusters is not explained. Clarify whether the same PCA and k-means procedure is reused and why the number of clusters differs.
  3. [Section 3.2] The MedNeXt section says it was 'trained in a label-respective manner for each task' and 'using strategies from the 3D nnU-Net (v2)', but the exact label preprocessing, patch size, and region-based training details are not specified. Since these details affect reproducibility, please provide the concrete configuration or cite the exact repository version.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Table 2] Table 2 is difficult to read: the lesion threshold rows are not clearly aligned with the cluster columns, and the ET/WT ratio thresholds are only nonzero for cluster 6. Please reformat the table and define what 'label 1', 'label 2', and 'label 3' refer to before the table is usable.
  5. [Section 4.2] The ensemble weights 0.4722 and 0.5278 are reported to five decimal places, but no uncertainty or sensitivity analysis is given. A brief statement of how much ensemble performance varied with small perturbations of these weights would help assess overfitting to the cross-validation folds.
  6. [Section 2, Table 1] Table 1 says there is 'an additional unknown number of testing sets'; this appears to be a typo. Presumably the datasets have an unknown number of testing cases, not 'testing sets'. Please correct the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the headline results are evaluated on an external challenge hold-out, and the self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim (lesion-wise Dice of 0.870, 0.865, and 0.926, and first-place ranking) is evaluated on the BraTS-Africa 2024 validation set through the challenge platform, which the paper states was done automatically without access to validation ground truth. Ensemble weights and adaptive post-processing thresholds are selected on cross-validated training folds in Section 4.2; this is standard hyperparameter selection, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The stratification step in Section 3.1 is described operationally using PCA and k-means clustering, and it is not defined in terms of the outcome it is claimed to improve; the absence of a random-split control is a weakness in experimental evidence, not a circular reduction. The self-citations [8], [11], and [12] support the adoption of ensembling, radiomic feature selection, and adaptive post-processing, but the present manuscript applies and externally evaluates those components, so no quoted equation or claim reduces the reported validation performance to these citations. The post-processing change in whole-tumor HD95 from 14.003 to 4.003 in Table 3 is suspicious and should be verified, but it does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method uses standard deep learning architectures and published post-processing strategies; the main free parameters are the stratification clusters, ensemble weights, and thresholds, all chosen on training or cross-validation data. No new physical or biological entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Principal components (PCA) = 9
    The paper states that PCA components explaining 99% variance yielded 9 features (Section 3.1). This is a hyperparameter set by a variance threshold, not fitted to the validation labels.
  • Number of k-means clusters for stratification = not given (optimal via grid search)
    Section 3.1: optimal number of clusters determined using grid search and silhouette analysis on the training set. This affects fold composition and is fit to the data.
  • Ensemble weights (wn, wm) = 0.4722 for nnU-Net, 0.5278 for MedNeXt
    Section 4.2: weights are chosen based on each model's cross-validation Dice, so they are fitted to the training data.
  • Post-processing lesion thresholds and ET/WT ratio thresholds = Table 2 values per cluster
    Section 3.4 and 4.2: grid search on cross-validated predictions selects thresholds for removing small detections and adjusting ET labels. These are fitted parameters.
  • Number of post-processing clusters = 8
    Section 3.4: PCA on predicted WT identified 8 clusters for adaptive post-processing; chosen via silhouette analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The BraTS2023-Adult-Glioma dataset is a useful source domain for transfer learning to the Sub-Saharan African BraTS-Africa data.
    Section 3.2 pretrains on BraTS2023-GLI before fine-tuning on BraTS-Africa; the benefit is assumed from the results and not formally justified.
  • domain assumption Radiomic features (14 shape and 93 intensity) on the whole tumor capture relevant tumor subtypes for stratification.
    Section 3.1 uses these features for k-means clustering; no validation that the resulting clusters are clinically or radiologically meaningful.
  • domain assumption The challenge's validation set is an unbiased sample of the target population and the Synapse evaluation software computes ground truth and metrics correctly.
    Section 4.1 relies on the challenge platform for evaluation without independent verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adult Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa using Transfer Learning on Stratified Finetuning Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I36QUB2C

@misc{pith2026241204111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adult Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa using Transfer Learning on Stratified Finetuning Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I36QUB2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04111}
}
read the original abstract

Gliomas, a kind of brain tumor characterized by high mortality, present substantial diagnostic challenges in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. This paper introduces a novel approach to glioma segmentation using transfer learning to address challenges in resource-limited regions with minimal and low-quality MRI data. We leverage pre-trained deep learning models, nnU-Net and MedNeXt, and apply a stratified fine-tuning strategy using the BraTS2023-Adult-Glioma and BraTS-Africa datasets. Our method exploits radiomic analysis to create stratified training folds, model training on a large brain tumor dataset, and transfer learning to the Sub-Saharan context. A weighted model ensembling strategy and adaptive post-processing are employed to enhance segmentation accuracy. The evaluation of our proposed method on unseen validation cases on the BraTS-Africa 2024 task resulted in lesion-wise mean Dice scores of 0.870, 0.865, and 0.926, for enhancing tumor, tumor core, and whole tumor regions and was ranked first for the challenge. Our approach highlights the ability of integrated machine-learning techniques to bridge the gap between the medical imaging capabilities of resource-limited countries and established developed regions. By tailoring our methods to a target population's specific needs and constraints, we aim to enhance diagnostic capabilities in isolated environments. Our findings underscore the importance of approaches like local data integration and stratification refinement to address healthcare disparities, ensure practical applicability, and enhance impact. A dockerized version of the BraTS-Africa 2024 winning algorithm is available at https://hub.docker.com/r/aparida12/brats-ssa-2024 .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04111 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Training examples showing the differences between the BraTS-Adult-Glioma and the BraTS2023-Africa datasets. 2 Data description For our model training, we utilized the BraTS2023-Adult-Glioma [4] and BraTS￾Africa datasets [1]. These datasets were collected during routine multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) clinical scans, acquired as part of standard clinical care from multiple institutions using conventional brain tumor ima… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed method: Unsupervised stratified fold split, fine-tuning of pre￾trained models on BraTS2023-GLI, model ensembling and adaptive post-processing. Outputs are obtained from two state-of-the-art deep learning models. These outputs are subjected to nonlinear activation functions and ensembling strategies. Finally, the ensembled predictions are subjected to a specifically tailored adaptive post-processing step. 3.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results of models after post processing on the validation sample of BraTS-SSA-00227-000. The top row of the figure shows T1CE and the performance of model in segmenting different regions(NCR-red, ED-green, ET-blue) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 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.

  3. BraTS orchestrator : Democratizing and Disseminating state-of-the-art brain tumor image analysis

    eess.IV 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    BraTS orchestrator is a new open-source package that provides uniform, tutorial-based access to winning BraTS segmentation and synthesis algorithms for brain tumor MRI.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adewole, M., Rudie, J.D., Gbadamosi, A., et al.: The Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge 2023: Glioma Segmentation in Sub-Saharan Africa Patient Population (BraTS-Africa) (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    SPCXR: Self-supervised Pretraining using Chest X-rays Towards a Domain Specific Foundation Model

    Anwar, S.M., Parida, A., Atito, S., et al.: SS-CXR: Multitask representation learning using self supervised pre-training from chest x-rays. arXiv:2211.12944 (2022)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Clinical imaging 94, 18–41 (2023)

    Atasever, S., Azginoglu, N., Terzi, D.S., Terzi, R.: A comprehensive survey of deep learning research on medical image analysis with focus on transfer learning. Clinical imaging 94, 18–41 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021) SSA: Adult Glioma Segmentation 9

    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) SSA: Adult Glioma Segmentation 9

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Model Ensemble for Brain Tumor Segmentation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging

    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

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.08232 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Neuro-Oncology Practice p

    Di Nunno, V., Gatto, L., Aprile, M., Bartolini, S., Tosoni, A., Franceschi, E.: Economic income and survival in patients affected by glioblastoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro-Oncology Practice p. npae045 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    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

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 14 (2020)

    Kofler, F., Berger, C., Waldmannstetter, D., Lipkova, J., Ezhov, I., Tetteh, G., Kirschke, J., Zimmer, C., Wiestler, B., Menze, B.H.: Brats toolkit: Translating brats brain tumor segmentation algorithms into clinical and scientific practice. Frontiers in Neuroscience 14 (2020)...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024)

    Lee, J., Xie, A., Pacchiano, A., Chandak, Y., Finn, C., Nachum, O., Brunskill, E.: Supervised pretraining can learn in-context reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

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

    Liao, W., Xiong, H., Wang, Q., Mo, Y., Li, X., Liu, Y., Chen, Z., Huang, S., Dou, D.: Muscle: Multi-task self-supervised continual learning to pre-train deep models for x-ray images of multiple body parts. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-As...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Frontiers in oncology11, 748061 (2021)

    Lin, D., Wang, M., Chen, Y., Gong, J., Chen, L., Shi, X., Lan, F., Chen, Z., Xiong, T., Sun, H., et al.: Trends in intracranial glioma incidence and mortality in the united states, 1975-2018. Frontiers in oncology11, 748061 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    arXiv:2402.15534 (2024) 10 A

    Parida, A., Capellan-Martin, D., Atito, S., et al.: DiCoM–Diverse Concept Modeling towards Enhancing Generalizability in Chest X-Ray Studies. arXiv:2402.15534 (2024) 10 A. Parida, D. Capellán-Martín, Z. Jiang et al

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Human brain mapping31(5), 798–819 (2010)

    Rohlfing, T., Zahr, N.M., Sullivan, E.V., Pfefferbaum, A.: The SRI24 multichannel atlas of normal adult human brain structure. Human brain mapping31(5), 798–819 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    de Verdier, M.C., Saluja, R., Gagnon, L., LaBella, D., Baid, U., et al.: The 2024 brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge: Glioma segmentation on post-treatment mri (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18368

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: Improving Technology Through Ethics, pp

    Vibbi, L.F.: Poor data quality in sub-saharan africa and implications on ethical ai development. In: Improving Technology Through Ethics, pp. 83–92. Springer (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Neuro-Oncology Advances6(1) (2024)

    Yevudza, W.E., Buckman, V., Darko, K., Banson, M., Totimeh, T.: Neuro-oncology access in sub-saharan africa: A literature review of challenges and opportunities. Neuro-Oncology Advances6(1) (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Neurocomputing489, 230–254 (2022)

    Yu, X., Wang, J., Hong, Q.Q., Teku, R., Wang, S.H., Zhang, Y.D.: Transfer learning for medical images analyses: A survey. Neurocomputing489, 230–254 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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