Ensemble Learning and 3D Pix2Pix for Comprehensive Brain Tumor Analysis in Multimodal MRI

Franziska Mathis-Ullrich; Ramy A. Zeineldin

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Ensemble Learning and 3D Pix2Pix for Comprehensive Brain Tumor Analysis in Multimodal MRI

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an ensemble of CNN-transformer models, SPARC, reaches lesion-wise Dice scores of 0.84 on adult glioma MRI, 0.76 on Sub-Saharan African cases, and 0.73 on pediatric cases, while a 3D Pix2Pix GAN inpaints tumor regions…

desk verdict The segmentation ensemble is a reasonable challenge entry, but the inpainting results are invalid as reported—Table 3's MSE and PSNR contradict each other. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11849 v1 pith:JBKUJ3S3 submitted 2024-12-16 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Ramy A. Zeineldin , Franziska Mathis-Ullrich This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG

keywords braintumorsegmentationMRIinpaintingensemblelearning3DPix2PixaxialattentiontransformerencoderBraTS2023neuralnetworkensembles

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

The paper tries to establish that a single AI pipeline can do both jobs needed to analyze tumor-bearing brain MRI: segmenting glioma subregions and replacing the tumor with plausible healthy-looking tissue. The authors claim that an ensemble of five U-Net/transformer hybrids, labeled SPARC, reaches a lesion-wise Dice score of 0.84 on adult gliomas, 0.76 on Sub-Saharan African cases, and 0.73 on pediatric cases without retraining. They further claim that an enhanced 3D Pix2Pix GAN inpaints tumor regions with test-set PSNR 17.26 and SSIM 0.7242. If these results hold, automated tools could both localize disease and normalize scans for downstream analysis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the SPARC ensemble, a set of five 3D U-Nets whose encoders incorporate a transformer and whose decoders use axial attention, trained with group normalization and per-subregion sigmoid binary cross-entropy, followed by connected-component post-processing and threshold adjustments. The companion machinery is the enhanced 3D Pix2Pix GAN, which replaces attention with position embeddings and concatenation skip connections with additive ones, and is trained on surrogate masks generated from healthy tissue so it can fill dilated tumor regions. Axial attention is what makes self-attention tractable on 3D volumes by applying it sequentially along each axis.

What would settle it

Run the SPARC ensemble with the exact post-processing thresholds stated in the paper on a held-out cohort (for example, the BraTS 2023 test set) and compare lesion-wise DSC and HD95 with the validation-set numbers; a material drop would show that the thresholds were overfit to the validation set. For inpainting, feed the synthesized healthy volumes into an atlas-registration or volumetry tool built for healthy brains and check whether the outputs match those from genuinely healthy scans.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the segmentation and inpainting problems in brain tumor MRI can be handled by one integrated framework of an ensemble segmentation model and a conditional GAN, and that this framework performs competitively on both BraTS 2023 tasks. The SPARC ensemble of five U-Net/transformer hybrids reaches a lesion-wise Dice score of 0.84 on adult glioma (GLI) validation data, 0.76 on Sub-Saharan African (SSA) data, and 0.73 on pediatric (PED) data, with legacy Dice scores around 88 percent. The enhanced 3D Pix2Pix GAN achieves test-set inpainting scores of PSNR 17.26, SSIM 0.7242, and MSE 0.0665. The paper attributes the segmentation result to ensembling diverse CNN-transformer models with axial attention and BraTS-specific training choices, and the inpainting result to an adapted 3D Pix2Pix with DeepSeg, additive skip connections, and position embeddings. It also reports a clear pediatric failure mode, where edema is mislabeled as non-enhancing tumor, which drags down the tumor-core score on PED.

Load-bearing premise

The reported segmentation scores depend on post-processing thresholds the authors tuned against the same validation set on which they report scores; if those thresholds do not transfer to unseen data, the DSC and HD95 numbers overstate the model's true performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported transfer results hold, a single ensemble trained on adult glioma data can be applied to pediatric and Sub-Saharan African cohorts without retraining, with average lesion-wise Dice dropping only modestly (from 0.84 to 0.73-0.76).
If the inpainting outputs are accepted as healthy-tissue equivalents, tumor-bearing scans can be passed through pipelines built for healthy brains, so those tools need not be altered.
The per-subregion sigmoid-plus-binary-cross-entropy training with group normalization is directly reusable in other low-memory 3D segmentation settings.
The combined framework gives a single system that delineates tumor subregions and produces a cleaned image for planning, rather than requiring separate segmentation and normalization stages.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the inpainting model's better behavior on small tumors could mean it is reconstructing local texture rather than global anatomy; evaluating on large lesions with mass effect would be the sharper test.
The margin between SPARC and the nnU-Net and DeepSCAN baselines in Table 1 is small, suggesting that validation-tuned post-processing contributes at least as much as the ensemble architecture; freezing thresholds before seeing validation labels would separate the two.
PSNR and SSIM measure pixel-level similarity, not whether the synthesized regions support downstream registration or volumetry, so a downstream-task experiment on inpainted scans would test the clinical claim more directly.
The pediatric misclassification of edema as non-enhancing core implies that plain transfer learning is not enough for this distribution shift; pediatric-specific augmentation or fine-tuning is a natural extension.

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

Quick take: this is a BraTS 2023 challenge methods report. The segmentation half is honest and externally validated on Synapse, but the inpainting half has a fatal internal inconsistency in Table 3. The validation row reports MSE 0.0533 and PSNR 16.44; the test row reports MSE 0.0665 and PSNR 17.26. Under the standard PSNR definition, a higher MSE has to mean lower PSNR for a fixed peak value. No choice of I_max makes both rows consistent. So the two PSNR values cannot both be right, and the abstract's claim of 'outstanding performance' for inpainting rests on unreliable numbers. That's not a quibble about post-processing; it's arithmetic.

What's new and useful: the SPARC ensemble, five models averaged, uses axial attention decoder and group norm, and it's evaluated on the official BraTS 2023 validation platform. The segmentation numbers are credible and comparable to nnU-Net (0.84 lesion-wise DSC on GLI). The paper also honestly notes the PED misclassification of edema as non-enhancing. The inpainting method, a 3D Pix2Pix with minor modifications, is described clearly enough to reproduce in spirit, though no code is provided.

Soft spots beyond the table: the post-processing thresholds were tuned on the same validation set whose metrics get reported, so the DSC/HD95 numbers likely overstate generalization. No confidence intervals or significance tests are actually shown, despite the text mentioning paired t-tests. The inpainting section has no baseline comparisons—no nnU-Net, no simple UNet, nothing. And the reference list has a few incomplete entries (missing years/pages).

Overall, this is a workmanlike challenge write-up that overclaims. The segmentation part deserves a look from people tracking BraTS results; the inpainting part needs the authors to correct Table 3 and provide proper metrics before it can be taken seriously. I'd send it to peer review, because a good referee can force the fix, but I wouldn't cite the inpainting numbers as they stand.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a combined framework for two BraTS 2023 tasks: an ensemble segmentation model (SPARC) built from 3D U-Net, a transformer encoder, and an axial attention decoder, and a 3D Pix2Pix GAN for synthetic healthy-tissue inpainting of tumor regions. The authors report lesion-wise DSC and HD95 on the GLI, PED, and SSA validation sets and MSE, PSNR, and SSIM on the Inpainting validation and test sets, concluding that both components perform robustly and have clinical potential.

Significance. If the reported numbers can be substantiated, the work would provide a useful benchmark for combining segmentation and inpainting in a single pipeline, and the transferability experiments on pediatric and African populations are a welcome addition. The manuscript benefits from using the official Synapse evaluation platform for segmentation metrics and from reporting qualitative outputs for both tasks. However, the inpainting quantitative evidence contains an internal contradiction, and the segmentation evaluation is partially circular because post-processing thresholds were tuned on the same validation set used for the reported scores; the significance of the paper therefore rests on unverified numbers.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.4, Table 3] The reported MSE and PSNR pairs are mutually inconsistent under the standard definition PSNR = 10*log10(I_max^2 / MSE). For any fixed peak intensity I_max, PSNR strictly decreases as MSE increases, but the table reports validation (MSE 0.0533, PSNR 16.4413) and test (MSE 0.0665, PSNR 17.2619), i.e., a larger MSE with a larger PSNR. The two PSNR values correspond to MSE values of roughly 0.0227 and 0.0188 (for I_max=1), far from the tabulated MSEs. Because these numbers are the primary quantitative support for the inpainting claim, the table must be corrected and the discussion updated accordingly.
[Section 2.1, Post-processing] The post-processing thresholds and connected-component rules are described as chosen to optimize performance metrics on the validation set, and the same validation-set numbers are then reported in Tables 1 and 2 as evidence of the method's performance. This creates a circular evaluation for the GLI, PED, and SSA results. The authors should evaluate the full pipeline on the unseen test set or perform nested cross-validation with threshold selection inside each training fold; at minimum, the reported validation scores should be clearly labeled as tuned rather than as unbiased estimates.
[Section 3.1, Statistical validation] The text states that paired t-tests were performed to verify improvements and that this 'confirmed' the enhancements, but no p-values, test statistics, or details about the paired units are provided anywhere in the manuscript. In addition, no error bars or variance estimates are given for any of the segmentation or inpainting metrics. Either provide the full statistical reporting, including effect sizes and confidence intervals, or remove the claim of statistical confirmation.
[Section 3.4, Inpainting evaluation] The inpainting results are reported without any comparison to a baseline, such as a simple interpolation method, the unmodified Pix2Pix architecture, or a diffusion-based approach. Since the abstract claims 'outstanding performance' for inpainting, the absence of any comparative baseline means the reader cannot assess whether the reported PSNR/SSIM values represent a meaningful improvement; a baseline comparison should be added.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.2] The text says the method is 'inspired by a recent denoising diffusion-based study [21, 22]', but reference [22] is the original Pix2Pix paper and is not about diffusion; clarify which reference inspired which component.
[References] References [19] (Wu and He) and [22] (Isola et al.) are missing publication years; these should be completed.
[Sections 3.2 and 3.3] The dataset name is written inconsistently as 'BraTS GLA' in the text and Figure 1 caption, while the challenge is called GLI; unify the terminology throughout.
[Table 2] The heading says 'legacy DSC and HD95 scores', but the units of HD95 are not given; add millimeters and specify whether these are lesion-wise or volumetric HD95.
[Section 3.4, Figure 2] The claim of 'high-resolution generated samples depicting a high degree of structural accuracy' is not substantiated by Figure 2, which shows no ground truth or error visualization for the inpainting outputs; add a quantitative or qualitative comparison to the healthy reference tissue.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Segmentation claim rests on post-processing thresholds optimized against the same validation set whose metrics are then reported; inpainting numbers contain a separate non-circular inconsistency.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (Post-processing) and Section 3.2 (Quantitative Results), Tables 1-2]
"we implemented measures to adjust enhancing tumor predictions based on predefined thresholds and thus optimizing the performance metrics while minimizing false positives. ... The results of this evaluation are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Using Synapse ... we reported the lesion-wise DSC and the lesion-wise HD95 ..."

The post-processing thresholds are described as being set to optimize the evaluation metrics, and the same validation datasets (GLI, PED, SSA) are subsequently used to report those DSC and HD95 values as evidence of 'precise segmentation.' The reported segmentation scores are therefore not independent measurements of model quality: a post-processing rule has been fitted to the very quantities being reported, and no held-out segmentation test set is provided. This makes the central segmentation claim partly self-confirming by construction.

full rationale

This is a benchmark-reporting paper with no formal derivation chain, so the main circularity categories mostly do not apply. The concrete circular step is in segmentation evaluation: Section 2.1 states that post-processing thresholds were chosen to optimize the performance metrics, and Section 3.2 reports the same validation-set metrics (Tables 1-2) as evidence of performance without any held-out test set. This is a fitted input renamed as a reported result, raising the score to 4. The authors' self-citations to DeepSeg and earlier hybrid ViT work are provenance, not load-bearing circularity, because the reported results are externally evaluated on the BraTS platform. Two additional concerns are correctness/transparency issues, not circularity: Table 3 reports validation MSE 0.0533 with PSNR 16.4413 and test MSE 0.0665 with PSNR 17.2619, which is impossible under the standard PSNR relation since larger MSE must yield smaller PSNR; and Section 3.1 mentions paired t-tests without reporting p-values or test details. These undermine the inpainting evidence but do not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new theoretical entities; the main fitted quantities are the post-processing thresholds and design choices such as group count and ensemble size.

free parameters (3)

Enhancing-tumor post-processing threshold = not reported
Section 2.1 describes a threshold applied to enhancing tumor predictions, tuned to optimize performance metrics on the validation set.
Group normalization group count = 32
Chosen default to fit GPU memory constraints, Section 2.1.
Ensemble size = 5
Five cross-validation models averaged; no ablation justifying the number, Section 3.2.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption Surrogate inpainting masks sampled from healthy tissue are a valid proxy for tumor voids
Section 2.2 trains the GAN on masks generated in healthy regions; if the distribution of healthy tissue around real tumors differs, inpainting quality on true tumors is not guaranteed.
domain assumption Lesion-wise DSC and HD95 on the BraTS validation set are the correct generalization measures
Used by the challenge platform; the paper treats these scores as definitive evidence of clinical utility without external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ensemble Learning and 3D Pix2Pix for Comprehensive Brain Tumor Analysis in Multimodal MRI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBKUJ3S3

@misc{pith2026241211849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ensemble Learning and 3D Pix2Pix for Comprehensive Brain Tumor Analysis in Multimodal MRI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBKUJ3S3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11849}
}

read the original abstract

Motivated by the need for advanced solutions in the segmentation and inpainting of glioma-affected brain regions in multi-modal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), this study presents an integrated approach leveraging the strengths of ensemble learning with hybrid transformer models and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), alongside the innovative application of 3D Pix2Pix Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). Our methodology combines robust tumor segmentation capabilities, utilizing axial attention and transformer encoders for enhanced spatial relationship modeling, with the ability to synthesize biologically plausible brain tissue through 3D Pix2Pix GAN. This integrated approach addresses the BraTS 2023 cluster challenges by offering precise segmentation and realistic inpainting, tailored for diverse tumor types and sub-regions. The results demonstrate outstanding performance, evidenced by quantitative evaluations such as the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff Distance (HD95) for segmentation, and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM), Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Mean-Square Error (MSE) for inpainting. Qualitative assessments further validate the high-quality, clinically relevant outputs. In conclusion, this study underscores the potential of combining advanced machine learning techniques for comprehensive brain tumor analysis, promising significant advancements in clinical decision-making and patient care within the realm of medical imaging.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Ensemble Learning and 3D Pix2Pix for Comprehensive Brain Tumor Analysis in Multimodal MRI Ramy A. Zeineldin1, Franziska Mathis-Ullrich1 1 Department of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering (AIBE), Friedrich-Alexan-der-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany ramy.zeineldin@fau.de Abstract. Motivated by the need for advanced solutions in th...

work page 2023
[2]

All reported values were computed by the online evaluation platform Synapse

Comparative performance of SPARC model on BraTS 2023 GLI, PED, and SSA vali-dation datasets using the legacy DSC and HD95 scores. All reported values were computed by the online evaluation platform Synapse. Dataset Model DSC (%) HD95 ET TC WT Avg ET TC WT Avg GLI SPARC 84.49 87.86 92.91 88.42 16.19 7.88 4.21 9.43 SSA SPARC 83.56 85.08 91.37 86.67 17.75 11...

work page 2023
[3]

Results of the enhanced 3D Pix2Pix model on the BraTS 2023 Inpainting Challenge. Dataset MSE PSNR SSIM Valid 0.0533 16.4413 0.6956 Test 0.0665 17.2619 0.7242 4 Discussion The extensive evaluations of our models within the BraTS 2023 challenges have un-veiled the strengths and potential limitations of our proposed methodologies. Through these analyses, we ...

work page 2023
[4]

WT” Denotes Whole Tumor, “ET

Comparative performance of segmentation models on BraTS 2023 GLI, PED, and SSA validation datasets: “WT” Denotes Whole Tumor, “ET” Refers to Enhancing Tumor, and “TC” Indicates Tumor Core components. Dataset Model Lesion-wise DSC Lesion-wise HD95 ET TC WT Avg ET TC WT Avg GLI TransBTS 0.77 0.81 0.75 0.78 46.97 36.68 72.15 51.93 nnU-Net 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.84...

work page 2023
[5]

Scientific Data 4, (2017)

Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., Bilello, M., Rozycki, M., Kirby, J.S., Freymann, J.B., Farahani, K., Davatzikos, C.: Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Scientific Data 4, (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

In the BraTS-GLI dataset, SPARC showed a robust ability to segment brain tumors, with an average lesion-wise DSC of 0.84 and lesion-wise HD95 of 28.91

Statistical evaluation on the PED and SSA datasets was to gauge the transfer learning capabilities of the proposed SPARC model. In the BraTS-GLI dataset, SPARC showed a robust ability to segment brain tumors, with an average lesion-wise DSC of 0.84 and lesion-wise HD95 of 28.91. In the PED and SSA datasets, SPARC achieved lesion-wise DSCs of 0.73 and 0.76...

work page 2023
[7]

Tumor labels are Edema in yellow (ED), Enhancing Tumor in green (ET), and Non-enhancing Component (NC) in red

Visual segmentation outputs by our ensemble model for BraTS 2023 GLA (up), SSA (middle), and PED (down) sets. Tumor labels are Edema in yellow (ED), Enhancing Tumor in green (ET), and Non-enhancing Component (NC) in red. 3.4 Inpainting Output Our enhanced 3D Pix2Pix GAN model was evaluated in the BraTS 2023 Inpainting Challenge, where it achieved good res...

work page 2023
[8]

The cancer imaging archive 286, (2017)

Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., Bilello, M., Rozycki, M., Kirby, J., Freymann, J., Farahani, K., Davatzikos, C.: Segmentation labels and radiomic features for the pre-operative scans of the TCGA-LGG collection. The cancer imaging archive 286, (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 30 references

[9]

Despite the promising results, challenges remain, such as optimizing post-processing strategies to balance the trade-off between false positives and true positives

For an in-depth exploration of the techniques and their im-plications, we direct readers to the detailed publications [13, 21]. Despite the promising results, challenges remain, such as optimizing post-processing strategies to balance the trade-off between false positives and ...

2021
[10]

removing

challenges have markedly advanced the field of medical imaging by fostering an envi-ronment of collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and technologists focused on the distinct challenges presented by the diverse patient populations in sub-Saharan Af-rica and the complexi...

2023
[11]

Patel, A.P., Fisher, J.L., Nichols, E., Abd-Allah, F., Abdela, J., Abdelalim, A., Abraha, H.N., Agius, D., Alahdab, F., Alam, T., Allen, C.A., Anber, N.H., Awasthi, A., Badali, H., Belachew, A.B., Bijani, A., Bjørge, T., Carvalho, F., Catalá-López, F., Choi, J.-Y.J., Daryani, ...

1990
[12]

Baid, U., Ghodasara, S., Bilello, M., Mohan, S., Calabrese, E., Colak, E., Farahani, K., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Kitamura, F.C., Pati, S., Prevedello, L.M., Rudie, J.D., Sako, C., Shinohara, R.T., Bergquist, T., Chai, R., Eddy, J., Elliott, J., Reade, W., Schaffter, T., Yu, T., Z...

2021 arXiv
[13]

and adapted for the vision domain [20], addresses the computational complexity of applying self-attention to 3D data. By applying self-attention sequen-tially across each axis, the model achieves linear computational complexity relative to the image size, facilitating the incl...

2022
[14]

Cancer 128, 47-58 (2021)

Gritsch, S., Batchelor, T.T., Gonzalez Castro, L.N.: Diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic implications of the 2021 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system. Cancer 128, 47-58 (2021)

2021
[15]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34, 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., Lanczi, L., Gerstner, E., Weber, M.-A., Arbel, T., Avants, B.B., Ayache, N., Buendia, P., Collins, D.L., Cordier, N., Corso, J.J., Criminisi, A., Das...

2015
[16]

Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 799-810 (2023)

Karargyris, A., Umeton, R., Sheller, M.J., Aristizabal, A., George, J., Wuest, A., Pati, S., Kassem, H., Zenk, M., Baid, U., Narayana Moorthy, P., Chowdhury, A., Guo, J., Nalawade, S., Rosenthal, J., Kanter, D., Xenochristou, M., Beutel, D.J., Chung, V., Bergquist, T., Eddy, J...

2023
[17]

The Cancer Imaging Archive

Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A.: Segmentation labels for the pre-operative scans of the TCGA-GBM collection. The Cancer Imaging Archive. ed (2017)

2017
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[19]

Adewole, M., Rudie, J.D., Gbadamosi, A., Toyobo, O., Raymond, C., Zhang, D., Omidiji, O., Akinola, R., Abba Suwaid, M., Emegoakor, A., Ojo, N., Aguh, K., Kalaiwo, C., Babatunde, G., Ogunleye, A., Gbadamosi, Y., Iorpagher, K., Calabrese, E., Aboian, M., Linguraru, M., Albrecht,...

2023 arXiv
[20]

Fathi Kazerooni, A., Khalili, N., Liu, X., Haldar, D., Jiang, Z., Muhammed Anwar, S., Albrecht, J., Adewole, M., Anazodo, U., Anderson, H., Bagheri, S., Baid, U., Bergquist, T., Borja, A.J., Calabrese, E., Chung, V., Conte, G.-M., Dako, F., Eddy, J., Ezhov, I., Familiar, A., F...

2023 arXiv
[21]

Kofler, F., Meissen, F., Steinbauer, F., Graf, R., Oswald, E., de da Rosa, E., Bran Li, H., Baid, U., Hoelzl, F., Turgut, O., Horvath, I., Waldmannstetter, D., Bukas, C., Adewole, M., Anwar, S.M., Janas, A., Fathi Kazerooni, A., LaBella, D., Moawad, A.W., Farahani, K., Eddy, J...

2023 arXiv
[22]

Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries, pp

Zeineldin, R.A., Karar, M.E., Burgert, O., Mathis-Ullrich, F.: Multimodal CNN Networks for Brain Tumor Segmentation in MRI: A BraTS 2022 Challenge Solution. Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries, pp. 127-137 (2023) 13

2023
[23]

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 15, 909-920 (2020)

Zeineldin, R.A., Karar, M.E., Coburger, J., Wirtz, C.R., Burgert, O.: DeepSeg: deep neural network framework for automatic brain tumor segmentation using magnetic resonance FLAIR images. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 15, 909-920 (2020)

2020
[24]

Advances in neural information processing systems 30, (2017)

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, Ł., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30, (2017)

2017
[25]

Scientific Reports 14, (2024)

Zeineldin, R.A., Karar, M.E., Elshaer, Z., Coburger, J., Wirtz, C.R., Burgert, O., Mathis-Ullrich, F.: Explainable hybrid vision transformers and convolutional network for multimodal glioma segmentation in brain MRI. Scientific Reports 14, (2024)

2024
[26]

Nature Methods 18, 203-211 (2020)

Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature Methods 18, 203-211 (2020)

2020
[27]

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 9351, 234-241 (2015)

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 9351, 234-241 (2015)

2015
[29]

Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries, pp

Luu, H.M., Park, S.-H.: Extending nn-UNet for Brain Tumor Segmentation. Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries, pp. 173-186 (2022)

2022
[30]

European Radiology Experimental 7, (2023)

Graf, R., Schmitt, J., Schlaeger, S., Möller, H.K., Sideri-Lampretsa, V., Sekuboyina, A., Krieg, S.M., Wiestler, B., Menze, B., Rueckert, D., Kirschke, J.S.: Denoising diffusion-based MRI to CT image translation enables automated spinal segmentation. European Radiology Experim...

2023
[2016]

The Lancet Neurology 18, 376-393 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ensemble Learning and 3D Pix2Pix for Comprehensive Brain Tumor Analysis in Multimodal MRI Ramy A. Zeineldin1, Franziska Mathis-Ullrich1 1 Department of Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering (AIBE), Friedrich-Alexan-der-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany ramy.zeineldin@fau.de Abstract. Motivated by the need for advanced solutions in th...

work page 2023

[2] [2]

All reported values were computed by the online evaluation platform Synapse

Comparative performance of SPARC model on BraTS 2023 GLI, PED, and SSA vali-dation datasets using the legacy DSC and HD95 scores. All reported values were computed by the online evaluation platform Synapse. Dataset Model DSC (%) HD95 ET TC WT Avg ET TC WT Avg GLI SPARC 84.49 87.86 92.91 88.42 16.19 7.88 4.21 9.43 SSA SPARC 83.56 85.08 91.37 86.67 17.75 11...

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Results of the enhanced 3D Pix2Pix model on the BraTS 2023 Inpainting Challenge. Dataset MSE PSNR SSIM Valid 0.0533 16.4413 0.6956 Test 0.0665 17.2619 0.7242 4 Discussion The extensive evaluations of our models within the BraTS 2023 challenges have un-veiled the strengths and potential limitations of our proposed methodologies. Through these analyses, we ...

work page 2023

[4] [4]

WT” Denotes Whole Tumor, “ET

Comparative performance of segmentation models on BraTS 2023 GLI, PED, and SSA validation datasets: “WT” Denotes Whole Tumor, “ET” Refers to Enhancing Tumor, and “TC” Indicates Tumor Core components. Dataset Model Lesion-wise DSC Lesion-wise HD95 ET TC WT Avg ET TC WT Avg GLI TransBTS 0.77 0.81 0.75 0.78 46.97 36.68 72.15 51.93 nnU-Net 0.81 0.85 0.86 0.84...

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Scientific Data 4, (2017)

Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., Bilello, M., Rozycki, M., Kirby, J.S., Freymann, J.B., Farahani, K., Davatzikos, C.: Advancing The Cancer Genome Atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Scientific Data 4, (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

In the BraTS-GLI dataset, SPARC showed a robust ability to segment brain tumors, with an average lesion-wise DSC of 0.84 and lesion-wise HD95 of 28.91

Statistical evaluation on the PED and SSA datasets was to gauge the transfer learning capabilities of the proposed SPARC model. In the BraTS-GLI dataset, SPARC showed a robust ability to segment brain tumors, with an average lesion-wise DSC of 0.84 and lesion-wise HD95 of 28.91. In the PED and SSA datasets, SPARC achieved lesion-wise DSCs of 0.73 and 0.76...

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Tumor labels are Edema in yellow (ED), Enhancing Tumor in green (ET), and Non-enhancing Component (NC) in red

Visual segmentation outputs by our ensemble model for BraTS 2023 GLA (up), SSA (middle), and PED (down) sets. Tumor labels are Edema in yellow (ED), Enhancing Tumor in green (ET), and Non-enhancing Component (NC) in red. 3.4 Inpainting Output Our enhanced 3D Pix2Pix GAN model was evaluated in the BraTS 2023 Inpainting Challenge, where it achieved good res...

work page 2023

[8] [8]

The cancer imaging archive 286, (2017)

Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., Bilello, M., Rozycki, M., Kirby, J., Freymann, J., Farahani, K., Davatzikos, C.: Segmentation labels and radiomic features for the pre-operative scans of the TCGA-LGG collection. The cancer imaging archive 286, (2017)

work page 2017