↓ Skip to main content

A deep convolutional neural network-based automatic delineation strategy for multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A deep convolutional neural network-based automatic delineation strategy for multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0185844
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Liu, Strahinja Stojadinovic, Brian Hrycushko, Zabi Wardak, Steven Lau, Weiguo Lu, Yulong Yan, Steve B. Jiang, Xin Zhen, Robert Timmerman, Lucien Nedzi, Xuejun Gu

Abstract

Accurate and automatic brain metastases target delineation is a key step for efficient and effective stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment planning. In this work, we developed a deep learning convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm for segmenting brain metastases on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets. We integrated the CNN-based algorithm into an automatic brain metastases segmentation workflow and validated on both Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation challenge (BRATS) data and clinical patients' data. Validation on BRATS data yielded average DICE coefficients (DCs) of 0.75±0.07 in the tumor core and 0.81±0.04 in the enhancing tumor, which outperformed most techniques in the 2015 BRATS challenge. Segmentation results of patient cases showed an average of DCs 0.67±0.03 and achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.98±0.01. The developed automatic segmentation strategy surpasses current benchmark levels and offers a promising tool for SRS treatment planning for multiple brain metastases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 174 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 61 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 15%
Computer Science 23 13%
Engineering 15 9%
Physics and Astronomy 7 4%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 78 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#156,315
of 196,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,660
of 323,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,981
of 3,764 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,764 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.