Assesses the effect of image and annotation quality on glioblastoma segmentation performance, suggesting quality matters in clinical datasets.
Quantification of the residual tumor from early post-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential in follow-up and treatment planning for glioblastoma patients. Residual tumor segmentation from early post-operative MRI is particularly challenging compared to the closely related task of pre-operative segmentation, as the tumor lesions are small, fragmented, and easily confounded with noise in the resection cavity. Recently, several studies successfully trained deep learning models for early post-operative segmentation, yet with subpar performances compared to the analogous task pre-operatively. In this study, the impact of image and annotation quality on model training and performance in early post-operative glioblastoma segmentation was assessed. A dataset consisting of early post-operative MRI scans from 423 patients and two hospitals in Norway and Sweden was assembled, for which image and annotation qualities were evaluated by expert neurosurgeons. The Attention U-Net architecture was trained with five-fold cross-validation on different quality-based subsets of the dataset in order to evaluate the impact of training data quality on model performance. Including low-quality images in the training set did not deteriorate performance on high-quality images. However, models trained on exclusively high-quality images did not generalize to low-quality images. Models trained on exclusively high-quality annotations reached the same performance level as the models trained on the entire dataset, using only two-thirds of the dataset. Both image and annotation quality had a significant impact on model performance. In dataset curation, images should ideally be representative of the quality variations in the real-world clinical scenario, and efforts should be made to ensure exact ground truth annotations of high quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Helland et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: