Daily Papers

Multimodal MRI provides critical complementary information for accurate brain tumor segmentation. However, conventional methods struggle when certain modalities are missing due to issues such as image quality, protocol inconsistencies, patient allergies, or financial constraints. To address this, we propose a robust single-modality parallel processing framework that achieves high segmentation accuracy even with incomplete modalities. Leveraging Holder divergence and mutual information, our model maintains modality-specific features while dynamically adjusting network parameters based on the available inputs. By using these divergence- and information-based loss functions, the framework effectively quantifies discrepancies between predictions and ground-truth labels, resulting in consistently accurate segmentation. Extensive evaluations on the BraTS 2018 and BraTS 2020 datasets demonstrate superior performance over existing methods in handling missing modalities.

Accurate and efficient segmentation of brain tumors is critical for diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring in clinical practice. In this study, we present an enhanced ResUNet architecture for automatic brain tumor segmentation, integrating an EfficientNetB0 encoder, a channel attention mechanism, and an Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling (ASPP) module. The EfficientNetB0 encoder leverages pre-trained features to improve feature extraction efficiency, while the channel attention mechanism enhances the model's focus on tumor-relevant features. ASPP enables multiscale contextual learning, crucial for handling tumors of varying sizes and shapes. The proposed model was evaluated on two benchmark datasets: TCGA LGG and BraTS 2020. Experimental results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms the baseline ResUNet and its EfficientNet variant, achieving Dice coefficients of 0.903 and 0.851 and HD95 scores of 9.43 and 3.54 for whole tumor and tumor core regions on the BraTS 2020 dataset, respectively. compared with state-of-the-art methods, our approach shows competitive performance, particularly in whole tumor and tumor core segmentation. These results indicate that combining a powerful encoder with attention mechanisms and ASPP can significantly enhance brain tumor segmentation performance. The proposed approach holds promise for further optimization and application in other medical image segmentation tasks.

This manuscript describes the first challenge on Federated Learning, namely the Federated Tumor Segmentation (FeTS) challenge 2021. International challenges have become the standard for validation of biomedical image analysis methods. However, the actual performance of participating (even the winning) algorithms on "real-world" clinical data often remains unclear, as the data included in challenges are usually acquired in very controlled settings at few institutions. The seemingly obvious solution of just collecting increasingly more data from more institutions in such challenges does not scale well due to privacy and ownership hurdles. Towards alleviating these concerns, we are proposing the FeTS challenge 2021 to cater towards both the development and the evaluation of models for the segmentation of intrinsically heterogeneous (in appearance, shape, and histology) brain tumors, namely gliomas. Specifically, the FeTS 2021 challenge uses clinically acquired, multi-institutional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans from the BraTS 2020 challenge, as well as from various remote independent institutions included in the collaborative network of a real-world federation (https://www.fets.ai/). The goals of the FeTS challenge are directly represented by the two included tasks: 1) the identification of the optimal weight aggregation approach towards the training of a consensus model that has gained knowledge via federated learning from multiple geographically distinct institutions, while their data are always retained within each institution, and 2) the federated evaluation of the generalizability of brain tumor segmentation models "in the wild", i.e. on data from institutional distributions that were not part of the training datasets.