NIMG-71. IDENTIFYING CLINICALLY APPLICABLE MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS FOR GLIOMA SEGMENTATION USING A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Abstract

Abstract PURPOSE Nowadays Machine learning (ML) algorithms are often used for segmentation of gliomas, but which algorithms provide the most accurate method for implementation into clinical practice has not fully been identified. We performed a systematic review of the literature to characterize the methods used for glioma segmentation and their accuracy. METHODS In accordance to PRISMA, a literature review was performed on four databases, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane trials (CENTRAL) and Web of science core-collection first in October 2020 and in February 2021. Keywords and controlled vocabulary included artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, radiomics, magnetic resonance imaging, glioma, and glioblastoma. Publications were screened in Covidence and the bias analysis was done in agreement with TRIPOD. RESULTS Sixty-six articles were used for data extraction. BRATS and TCIA datasets were used in 36.6% of all studies, with average number of patients being 141 (range: 1 to 622). ML methods represented 45.3% of studies, with deep learning used in 54.7%; Dice score for the tumor core ranged from 0.72 to 0.95. The most common algorithm used in the machine learning papers was support vector machines (SVM) and for deep learning papers, it was Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). Preliminary TRIPOD analysis yielded an average score from 12 (range: 7-16) with the majority of papers demonstrating deficiencies in description of the ML algorithm, funding role, data acquisition and measures of model performance. CONCLUSION In the last years, many articles were published on segmentation of gliomas using machine learning, thus establishing this method for tumor segmentation with high accuracy. However, the major limitations for clinically applicable use of ML in glioma segmentation include more than one-third of publications use the same datasets, thus limiting generalizability, increase the likelihood of overfitting, show and lack of ML network description and standardization in accuracy reporting.