Multimodal Volume-Aware Detection and Segmentation for Brain Metastases Radiosurgery

Feng-Ming Hsu; Furen Xiao; Jen-Tang Lu; Shao-Lun Lu; Szu-Yeu Hu; Wei-Hung Weng; Yueh-Hung Cheng

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 13 references

Multimodal Volume-Aware Detection and Segmentation for Brain Metastases Radiosurgery

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A multimodal ensemble plus a size-weighted loss lifts brain-metastasis segmentation recall by 24 percent.

desk verdict A sensible multimodal segmentation system whose headline gains look inflated because the reweighting loss was chosen on the test set; the method is worth engaging but the reported numbers shouldn't be trusted as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05418 v1 pith:BOZ6BOFW submitted 2019-08-15 eess.IV cs.CV

Szu-Yeu Hu , Wei-Hung Weng , Shao-Lun Lu , Yueh-Hung Cheng , Furen Xiao , Feng-Ming Hsu , Jen-Tang Lu This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CV

keywords brainmetastasesstereotacticradiosurgerydeeplearningmultimodalimagingvolume-awareDicelossensembleneuralnetworksmedicalimagesegmentationsmalllesiondetection

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 argues that automated detection and segmentation of brain metastases for stereotactic radiosurgery can be made substantially more reliable by combining three choices: using both MRI and CT instead of MRI alone, averaging the predictions of two network architectures, and training with a volume-aware Dice loss that upweights small lesions. On its test cohorts, the full system reaches a median Dice similarity coefficient of 0.740 and recall of 0.803, versus 0.669 and 0.700 for a standard 3D U-Net baseline. The largest measured gains are on small tumors, where pixel-wise recall rises from 0.466 to 0.633 and metastasis-wise detection from 0.619 to 0.672. Because missing small metastases is the clinically dangerous failure mode in radiosurgery, the paper positions the method as a practical assist for treatment-planning contouring.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the volume-aware Dice loss, a modification of the standard Dice loss in which the ground-truth vector $g$ is weighted by a diagonal matrix $W$ with entries $W_{ii} = (\lambda/\mathrm{volume}(i))^{1/2}$ for voxels inside a tumor and $0$ otherwise, together with a normalization constant $C$ that keeps the loss maximum at one. The paper tests constant reweighting, where $\lambda$ is a fixed hyperparameter, and batch reweighting, where $\lambda$ is the largest tumor volume in the batch; batch reweighting avoids hand-tuning $\lambda$ and gives the best balance of precision and recall. This loss makes the optimization sensitive to small lesions that standard Dice would ignore. The second mechanism is the ensemble: a full-volume 3D U-Net trained with the volume-aware Dice loss and a patch-based DeepMedic model trained with cross-entropy, whose probability maps are averaged at test time.

What would settle it

Re-delineate the same test scans with an independent protocol aimed at true lesion boundaries, or use follow-up imaging as the reference, and recompute the volume-aware loss's small-tumor recall; if the gap between standard Dice and volume-aware Dice narrows sharply or disappears, the measured benefit is an artifact of the treatment-contour ground truth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a volume-aware Dice loss combined with a multimodal ensemble segmentation system outperforms prior methods on brain metastases, and that the improvement concentrates where clinicians need it most: small lesions. The authors show that replacing the standard Dice loss with a reweighted version in which each voxel's contribution is weighted by the inverse square root of its tumor's volume raises recall on small tumors from 0.466 to 0.633 pixel-wise and from 0.619 to 0.672 metastasis-wise, while leaving large-tumor performance nearly unchanged. Combining a full-volume 3D U-Net and a patch-based DeepMedic network, trained with different objectives and input strategies, and averaging their probability maps raises the Dice score further, to 0.740. The paper interprets these results as evidence that an AI-assisted system can support SRS treatment planning for multiple brain metastases.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes the physician-drawn SRS treatment contours used as ground truth match the true tumor boundaries, but the paper itself notes these contours can be more aggressive or conservative than the lesion, ignore previously treated tumors, and include highly subjective cases; if those contours deviate systematically, the reported accuracy and the measured benefit of the volume-aware loss could reflect contouring style rather than true tumor extent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported performance holds, automated contouring could take over a large part of the manual delineation burden in SRS, since the system uses the same MRI and CT inputs clinicians already work with.
Because the volume-aware Dice loss is an architecture-agnostic change to the objective, its small-lesion recall gain should transfer to other segmentation networks trained on the same data.
With metastasis-wise recall on small lesions improved from 0.619 to 0.672, the system could act as a safety net that draws attention to lesions a human contourer might miss before radiosurgery.
The ensemble result implies that combining a full-context model and a patch-based model is enough to exploit both global brain anatomy and fine local detail in this task.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension beyond the paper is to apply batch-reweighted volume-aware Dice to other size-imbalanced medical segmentation tasks, such as lung nodules, lymph nodes, or liver lesions, where standard Dice is likewise dominated by large objects.
Because the ground truth in this study is treatment-planning contour rather than pathology, the true clinical sensitivity to small lesions remains unknown; a prospective comparison against a second expert contouring pass or follow-up MRI would settle it.
The batch-reweighting rule makes the loss self-adjusting to the largest lesion in each batch, which suggests it may be robust across institutions with different tumor-size distributions, but that robustness is not demonstrated here.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: this is a reasonable clinical AI paper with a simple, plausible loss tweak, but the main numerical claims are weaker than they look because the authors pick the winning configuration using the test set. The volume-aware Dice loss is a reweighted Dice variant (square-root inverse volume, with a batch-dependent normalizer) that isn't exactly in the cited literature, though generalized Dice loss is close and unmentioned. The multimodal MRI+CT input and the U-Net/DeepMedic ensemble are straightforward combinations of known components, not a conceptual leap.

What the paper does well: the problem is real — small brain metastases are easy to miss and manual contouring is time-consuming. The loss is clearly defined and the intuition is sensible: reweight by inverse sqrt of volume so small lesions contribute more. The authors report a consistent improvement on small tumors (pixel-wise recall 0.466 to 0.633, metastasis-wise recall 0.619 to 0.672). They also acknowledge up front that the ground truth is treatment contours, not true tumor extent, and that this can undervalue performance. That kind of honesty is rare and appreciated.

The soft spots are real. First, the choice between batch reweight and constant reweight with λ = 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 is made by looking at Table 1, which reports results on the combination of the two test sets. Then the final ensemble in Table 3 is selected on the same test sets. So the headline +8.57% DSC and +24.14% recall are selected estimates, not predictions. They could easily be inflated by chance. Second, the claim that this 'surpasses current benchmark levels' is unsupported because there is no direct comparison to prior methods (e.g., Charron or Liu) on the same data or even a re-implementation. Third, no confidence intervals or per-patient breakdowns are given, so you can't tell how stable the gains are.

The ground-truth issue is real but it hits the baseline and proposed loss symmetrically, so it matters less for the relative improvement claim. The citation gap on generalized Dice loss is minor but should be fixed.

Overall: the central idea is plausible, but the evidence as presented is insufficient to trust the magnitude of the improvement. This paper deserves a serious referee because the application is important and the method is sensible, but it needs a major revision: separate validation set for hyperparameter selection, direct comparisons to prior work, and uncertainty estimates. I wouldn't cite the specific numbers until that's done, but I'd bring it to a reading group to discuss the test-set selection issue.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a volume-aware Dice loss for brain metastasis detection and segmentation in SRS treatment planning, and combines it with a multimodal (MRI+CT) ensemble of a 3D U-Net and DeepMedic. On a single-center cohort of 305 patients plus an additional 36-patient test set, the authors report that the batch-reweighted volume-aware loss improves DSC by 8.57% and recall by 24.14% over a 3D U-Net baseline, and that the final ensemble reaches DSC 0.740 and recall 0.803. The paper also reports size-stratified results showing the largest recall gains on small tumors (pixel-wise recall from 0.466 to 0.633), and it acknowledges that the ground-truth contours are treatment-planning contours rather than true lesion boundaries.

Significance. The underlying idea of weighting small lesions more heavily in a Dice-style loss is clinically motivated and the arithmetic in Section 2.1 is internally consistent, including the normalization constant C in Eq. (2). If the reported gains survived independent evaluation, the system would be a useful contribution to SRS contouring, where small metastases are frequently missed. I credit the authors for evaluating two network architectures and multiple reweighting schemes, for reporting precision and recall separately, and for explicitly discussing the treatment-contour limitation. The evidence as presented, however, does not yet support the headline claims, because the best configuration was selected on the test set and no comparison against prior work is included.

major comments (3)

[§3.1, Table 1] In Section 3.1 the authors compare constant reweighting at λc = 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 with batch reweighting and select batch reweighting because it gives the best performance on the combination of the two test sets; the final ensemble in Section 3.2 is then also chosen using these same test sets. The reported improvements of +8.57% DSC and +24.14% recall are therefore the maximum of a set of configurations evaluated on the test data, not the performance of a configuration selected on an independent validation split, and the magnitude of any selection bias cannot be estimated because no confidence intervals or repeated splits are given. Please re-run the selection using the validation set (or nested cross-validation) and report the performance of the pre-specified final configuration on a held-out test set that was never used for any model or hyperparameter choice.
[§3.2, Table 3 / Abstract] The abstract and Section 3.2 state that the system 'surpasses current benchmark levels,' but no quantitative comparison with the prior brain-metastases segmentation methods cited as benchmarks ([1,6]) is provided; the only comparators in Table 3 are the authors' own 3D U-Net and DeepMedic. Because prior work used different data, modalities, and evaluation protocols, the benchmark claim is not supported. Add a direct comparison on a common dataset or clearly reframe the claim as an internal comparison.
[§3.3] The limitation section correctly states that the ground truth is the SRS treatment contour rather than the true tumor extent, and that these contours can be more aggressive or conservative, ignore previously treated tumors, and be highly subjective. This is not merely a caveat: the reported absolute DSC and the size-stratified recall gains in Table 2 may partly reflect agreement with a contouring protocol rather than true tumor detection, and no analysis quantifies the sensitivity of the results to contour variability. At minimum, the conclusions should be worded in terms of replicating treatment-planning contours, and ideally the authors should provide a contour-agreement or multi-reader analysis.

minor comments (4)

[§2.1, Eq. (2)] Because W appears only in the ground-truth terms (g^T W p and g^T W g) and not in p^T p, the proposed loss is not symmetric between prediction and ground truth; please state explicitly that this is an intentional recall-oriented weighting and discuss the expected effect on precision.
[Table 3] The table reports median (std) for apparently repeated runs, but the number of runs and the rule for selecting the reported model (e.g., best validation epoch) are not stated; adding this information would help interpret the small standard deviations.
[§3.1] The cutoff of 1500 mm3 for small versus large tumors is introduced without justification; state whether this threshold was chosen a priori or based on the data.
[§2.2 / §3.2] The ensemble confidence map is described as the average of the two models' probability maps, but no details are given for how the final binary mask is thresholded; specify the threshold selection procedure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The headline gains are selected on the test set rather than independently predicted, a partial circularity in the reported improvement.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, Table 1; final-system selection in Section 3.2, Table 3]
"We tested the λc of 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 for the CR strategy. ... Table 1 lists the results of applying 𝓁vol-dice relative to the baseline. Overall, using the 𝓁vol-dice with BR (λl) yields the best performance, improving 8.57% of DSC and 24.14% of recall compared to the baseline."

The reweighting strategy and λ value (BR vs CR with λc = 500, 1000, 2500, 5000) are chosen because they give the best numbers on the combined test sets, and the same test-set numbers are then reported as evidence that the volume-aware loss works. Thus the headline 8.57% DSC and 24.14% recall improvements are the maximum over configurations evaluated on the test data, not an independent prediction. The same issue occurs in Section 3.2, where the final ensemble and loss configuration is selected from test-set comparisons in Table 3. The loss formula itself is not definitionally circular; the circularity is in treating test-set-selected performance as a predictive result.

full rationale

The volume-aware Dice loss is a newly proposed objective whose weights depend on ground-truth tumor volume; it is not derived from the reported DSC/recall results, so the loss definition itself is not circular. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no imported uniqueness theorems. The main circularity concern is statistical: the paper evaluates multiple reweighting schemes (BR and CR with several λ values) on the same two test sets, selects the best performer, and then reports that selected performance as the central evidence for the method. Consequently, the claimed improvements are selected estimates and may be inflated by test-set overfitting; a held-out or externally validated dataset would be needed to confirm the improvement. The acknowledged ground-truth contour limitation is a validity issue rather than a circularity issue, since it affects baseline and proposed methods alike. Overall, the contribution retains independent content, but the reported headline gains reduce, in part, to test-set model selection rather than to an unbiased prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on two domain assumptions about the clinical data (registration accuracy and the validity of treatment contours as ground truth) and on the choice of the reweighting hyperparameter. The loss function itself requires no free parameters beyond lambda, but the selection of lambda and the reweight strategy on the test set introduces a mild circularity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

lambda_c (constant reweight) = 500, 1000, 2500, 5000
The constant in the volume-aware loss was tuned on the test set; the paper reports that performance depends strongly on its value (Table 1).
lambda_l (batch reweight) = dynamic max tumor volume in batch
The choice to use the batch maximum as lambda is a modeling decision not derived from theory; it was selected after comparing to CR variants (Section 3.1).
exponent in weight formula = 1/2
The paper chooses sqrt(1/volume) without derivation; other exponents would change the weighting behavior.
small/large tumor cutoff = 1500 mm3
Hand-chosen threshold for subgroup analysis; not a model parameter but a data analysis choice (Section 3.1).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Rigid registration between CT and MRI provides accurate spatial alignment for multimodal input.
The framework concatenates CT and MRI channels; if registration misaligns features, the network cannot use the complementary information as intended. Section 2.2 and Section 3 describe registration but do not quantify its error.
domain assumption Ground truth contours delineated for SRS treatment planning are a valid proxy for true tumor extent.
The paper itself notes these contours may be more aggressive or conservative than the lesion and may exclude previously treated tumors (Section 3.3). This assumption underlies every reported metric.
domain assumption DeepMedic trained with cross-entropy and 3D U-Net trained with Dice loss are complementary for ensemble.
The paper asserts this complementarity (Section 2.2) but provides no analysis of prediction disagreement or failure modes.
domain assumption The 80/10/10 random split yields a representative test set.
Single-center data from one CyberKnife system; the additional 36-patient set is from the same institution, so generalization to other centers and equipment is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multimodal Volume-Aware Detection and Segmentation for Brain Metastases Radiosurgery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOZ6BOFW

@misc{pith2026190805418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multimodal Volume-Aware Detection and Segmentation for Brain Metastases Radiosurgery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOZ6BOFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05418}
}

read the original abstract

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), which delivers high doses of irradiation in a single or few shots to small targets, has been a standard of care for brain metastases. While very effective, SRS currently requires manually intensive delineation of tumors. In this work, we present a deep learning approach for automated detection and segmentation of brain metastases using multimodal imaging and ensemble neural networks. In order to address small and multiple brain metastases, we further propose a volume-aware Dice loss which optimizes model performance using the information of lesion size. This work surpasses current benchmark levels and demonstrates a reliable AI-assisted system for SRS treatment planning for multiple brain metastases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05418 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Proposed deep learning framework with multimodal imaging and ensemble networks. convolution kernel size 3×3×3 and max-pooling size 2×2×1). We took a full size of the axial-view images and randomly sampled 8 consecutive slices on the vertical axis, resulting in input images size of 512×512×8×2 (height × width × number of slices × number of imaging modality). We set a limit to ensure that in each epoch, at least 70% o… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Examples of the prediction results overlaying with MRI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Examples of failed cases overlaying with MRI. the treatment rather than the actual tumor extent, which leads to imperfect annotations for tumor segmentation. Based on the clinician’s experience and the patient’s disease status, these annotations can be delineated more aggressively or conservatively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Computers in biology and medicine 95, 43--54 (2018)

Charron, O., Lallement, A., Jarnet, D., Noblet, V., Clavier, J.B., Meyer, P.: Automatic detection and segmentation of brain metastases on multimodal mr images with a deep convolutional neural network. Computers in biology and medicine 95, 43--54 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention

C i c ek, \"O ., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S.S., Brox, T., Ronneberger, O.: 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 424--432. Springer (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Frontiers in oncology 8, 154 (2018)

Hartgerink, D.E., van der Heyden, B., De Ruysscher, D., Hoeben, A., Terhaag, K., Lambin, P., Postma, A., Jochems, A., Dekker, A., Schoenmaekers, J., et al.: Stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer; indications, decision tools and future directions. Frontiers in oncology 8, 154 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Medical image analysis 36, 61--78 (2017)

Kamnitsas, K., Ledig, C., Newcombe, V.F., Simpson, J.P., Kane, A.D., Menon, D.K., Rueckert, D., Glocker, B.: Efficient multi-scale 3d cnn with fully connected crf for accurate brain lesion segmentation. Medical image analysis 36, 61--78 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

Journal of clinical oncology 33(30), 3475 (2015)

Lin, X., DeAngelis, L.M.: Treatment of brain metastases. Journal of clinical oncology 33(30), 3475 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

PloS one 12(10), e0185844 (2017)

Liu, Y., Stojadinovic, S., Hrycushko, B., Wardak, Z., Lau, S., Lu, W., Yan, Y., Jiang, S.B., Zhen, X., Timmerman, R., et al.: A deep convolutional neural network-based automatic delineation strategy for multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery. PloS one 12(10), e0185844 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993--2024 (2015)

Menze, B.H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., Kirby, J., Burren, Y., Porz, N., Slotboom, J., Wiest, R., et al.: The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993--2024 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

In: 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 565--571. IEEE (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 13 references

[9]

BioMed research international 2014 (2014)

Pereira, G.C., Traughber, M., Muzic, R.F.: The role of imaging in radiation therapy planning: past, present, and future. BioMed research international 2014 (2014)

2014
[10]

Practical radiation oncology 2(3), 210--225 (2012)

Tsao, M.N., Rades, D., Wirth, A., Lo, S.S., Danielson, B.L., Gaspar, L.E., Sperduto, P.W., Vogelbaum, M.A., Radawski, J.D., Wang, J.Z., et al.: Radiotherapeutic and surgical management for newly diagnosed brain metastasis (es): An american society for radiation oncology eviden...

2012
[11]

Radiotherapy and Oncology 121(2), 169--179 (2016)

Vinod, S.K., Jameson, M.G., Min, M., Holloway, L.C.: Uncertainties in volume delineation in radiation oncology: a systematic review and recommendations for future studies. Radiotherapy and Oncology 121(2), 169--179 (2016)

2016
[12]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION in...
[13]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Computers in biology and medicine 95, 43--54 (2018)

Charron, O., Lallement, A., Jarnet, D., Noblet, V., Clavier, J.B., Meyer, P.: Automatic detection and segmentation of brain metastases on multimodal mr images with a deep convolutional neural network. Computers in biology and medicine 95, 43--54 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention

C i c ek, \"O ., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S.S., Brox, T., Ronneberger, O.: 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 424--432. Springer (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Frontiers in oncology 8, 154 (2018)

Hartgerink, D.E., van der Heyden, B., De Ruysscher, D., Hoeben, A., Terhaag, K., Lambin, P., Postma, A., Jochems, A., Dekker, A., Schoenmaekers, J., et al.: Stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer; indications, decision tools and future directions. Frontiers in oncology 8, 154 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Medical image analysis 36, 61--78 (2017)

Kamnitsas, K., Ledig, C., Newcombe, V.F., Simpson, J.P., Kane, A.D., Menon, D.K., Rueckert, D., Glocker, B.: Efficient multi-scale 3d cnn with fully connected crf for accurate brain lesion segmentation. Medical image analysis 36, 61--78 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Journal of clinical oncology 33(30), 3475 (2015)

Lin, X., DeAngelis, L.M.: Treatment of brain metastases. Journal of clinical oncology 33(30), 3475 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

PloS one 12(10), e0185844 (2017)

Liu, Y., Stojadinovic, S., Hrycushko, B., Wardak, Z., Lau, S., Lu, W., Yan, Y., Jiang, S.B., Zhen, X., Timmerman, R., et al.: A deep convolutional neural network-based automatic delineation strategy for multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery. PloS one 12(10), e0185844 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993--2024 (2015)

Menze, B.H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., Kirby, J., Burren, Y., Porz, N., Slotboom, J., Wiest, R., et al.: The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34(10), 1993--2024 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

In: 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 565--571. IEEE (2016)

work page 2016