Title:Machine Learning in Magnetic Resonance Images of Glioblastoma: A Review
Volume: 20
Author(s): Georgina Waldo-Benítez, Luis Carlos Padierna, Pablo Cerón and Modesto A. Sosa*
Affiliation:
- División de Ciencias de Ingenierías, Universidad de Guanajuato, León, 37150, México
Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, Deep learning, Glioblastoma, Overall survival, Machine learning, Magnetic resonance imaging.
Abstract:
Background:
The purpose of this work was to identify which Glioblastoma (GBM) problems can be handled by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and
Machine Learning (ML) techniques. Results, limitations, and trends through a review of the scientific literature in the last 5 years were performed.
Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier databases, and forward and backward citations were used for searching articles applying ML techniques in
GBM. The 50 most relevant papers fulfilling the selection criteria were deeply analyzed. The PRISMA statement was followed to structure our
report.
Methods:
A partial taxonomy of the GBM problems tackled with ML methods was formulated with 15 subcategories grouped into four categories: extraction
of characteristics from tumoral regions, differentiation, characterization, and problems based on genetics.
Results:
The dominant techniques in solving these problems are: Radiomics for feature extraction, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator for
feature selection, Support Vector Machines and Random Forest for classification, and Convolutional Neural Networks for characterization. A
noticeable trend is that the application of Deep Learning on GBM problems is growing exponentially. The main limitations of ML methods are
their interpretability and generalization.
Conclusion:
The diagnosis, treatment, and characterization of GBM have advanced with the aid of ML methods and MRI data, and this improvement is
expected to continue. ML methods are effective in solving GBM-related problems with different precisions, Overall Survival being the hardest
problem to solve with accuracies ranging from 57%-71%, and GBM differentiation the one with the highest accuracy ranging from 80%-97%.
