Deep-learning methods for auto-segmenting brain images either segment one slice of the image (2D), five consecutive slices of the image (2.5D), or an entire volume of the image (3D). Whether one approach is superior for auto-segmenting brain images is not known. We compared these three approaches (3D, 2.5D, and 2D) across three auto-segmentation models (capsule networks, UNets, and nnUNets) to segment brain structures. We used 3430 brain MRIs, acquired in a multi-institutional study, to train and test our models. We used the following performance metrics: segmentation accuracy, performance with limited training data, required computational memory, and computational speed during training and deployment. The 3D, 2.5D, and 2D approaches respectively gave the highest to lowest Dice scores across all models. 3D models maintained higher Dice scores when the training set size was decreased from 3199 MRIs down to 60 MRIs. 3D models converged 20% to 40% faster during training and were 30% to 50% faster during deployment. However, 3D models require 20 times more computational memory compared to 2.5D or 2D models. This study showed that 3D models are more accurate, maintain better performance with limited training data, and are faster to train and deploy. However, 3D models require more computational memory compared to 2.5D or 2D models.

Patients with moderate traumatic brain injury who were administered low-level light therapy within 72 hours after injury showed increased resting-state brain connectivity as measured with functional MRI during the acute to subacute recovery phases compared with sham-treated patients.

Deep learning (DL) models have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in the classification of diagnostic imaging in oncology. However, DL models for medical images can be compromised by adversarial images, where pixel values of input images are manipulated to deceive the DL model. To address this limitation, our study investigates the detectability of adversarial images in oncology using multiple detection schemes. Experiments were conducted on thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans, mammography, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For each dataset we trained a convolutional neural network to classify the presence or absence of malignancy. We trained five DL and machine learning (ML)-based detection models and tested their performance in detecting adversarial images. Adversarial images generated using projected gradient descent (PGD) with a perturbation size of 0.004 were detected by the ResNet detection model with an accuracy of 100% for CT, 100% for mammogram, and 90.0% for MRI. Overall, adversarial images were detected with high accuracy in settings where adversarial perturbation was above set thresholds. Adversarial detection should be considered alongside adversarial training as a defense technique to protect DL models for cancer imaging classification from the threat of adversarial images.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current autosegmentation models such as UNets and nnUNets have limitations, including the inability to segment images that are not represented during training and lack of computational efficiency. 3D capsule networks have the potential to address these limitations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used 3430 brain MRIs, acquired in a multi-institutional study, to train and validate our models. We compared our capsule network with standard alternatives, UNets and nnUNets, on the basis of segmentation efficacy (Dice scores), segmentation performance when the image is not well-represented in the training data, performance when the training data are limited, and computational efficiency including required memory and computational speed. RESULTS: The capsule network segmented the third ventricle, thalamus, and hippocampus with Dice scores of 95%, 94%, and 92%, respectively, which were within 1% of the Dice scores of UNets and nnUNets. The capsule network significantly outperformed UNets in segmenting images that were not well-represented in the training data, with Dice scores 30% higher. The computational memory required for the capsule network is less than one-tenth of the memory required for UNets or nnUNets. The capsule network is also >25% faster to train compared with UNet and nnUNet. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a capsule network that is effective in segmenting brain images, can segment images that are not well-represented in the training data, and is computationally efficient compared with alternatives.

BACKGROUND: The molecular profile of gliomas is a prognostic indicator for survival, driving clinical decision-making for treatment. Pathology-based molecular diagnosis is challenging because of the invasiveness of the procedure, exclusion from neoadjuvant therapy options, and the heterogeneous nature of the tumor. PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review of algorithms that predict molecular subtypes of gliomas from MR Imaging. DATA SOURCES: Data sources were Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 12,318 abstracts were screened and 1323 underwent full-text review, with 85 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. DATA ANALYSIS: We compared prediction results from different machine learning approaches for predicting molecular subtypes of gliomas. Bias analysis was conducted for each study, following the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) guidelines. DATA SYNTHESIS: Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status was reported with an area under the curve and accuracy of 0.88 and 85% in internal validation and 0.86 and 87% in limited external validation data sets, respectively. For the prediction of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation, the area under the curve and accuracy in internal validation data sets were 0.79 and 77%, and in limited external validation, 0.89 and 83%, respectively. PROBAST scoring demonstrated high bias in all articles. LIMITATIONS: The low number of external validation and studies with incomplete data resulted in unequal data analysis. Comparing the best prediction pipelines of each study may introduce bias. CONCLUSIONS: While the high area under the curve and accuracy for the prediction of molecular subtypes of gliomas are reported in internal and external validation data sets, limited use of external validation and the increased risk of bias in all articles may present obstacles for clinical translation of these techniques.

Deep-learning methods for auto-segmenting brain images either segment one slice of the image (2D), five consecutive slices of the image (2.5D), or an entire volume of the image (3D). Whether one approach is superior for auto-segmenting brain images is not known. We compared these three approaches (3D, 2.5D, and 2D) across three auto-segmentation models (capsule networks, UNets, and nnUNets) to segment brain structures. We used 3430 brain MRIs, acquired in a multi-institutional study, to train and test our models. We used the following performance metrics: segmentation accuracy, performance with limited training data, required computational memory, and computational speed during training and deployment. 3D, 2.5D, and 2D approaches respectively gave the highest to lowest Dice scores across all models. 3D models maintained higher Dice scores when the training set size was decreased from 3199 MRIs down to 60 MRIs. 3D models converged 20% to 40% faster during training and were 30% to 50% faster during deployment. However, 3D models require 20 times more computational memory compared to 2.5D or 2D models. This study showed that 3D models are more accurate, maintain better performance with limited training data, and are faster to train and deploy. However, 3D models require more computational memory compared to 2.5D or 2D models.