4.6 Review

Artificial Intelligence for Survival Prediction in Brain Tumors on Neuroimaging

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 8-26

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000001938

Keywords

Artificial intelligence; Brain tumors; Neuroimaging; Survival; Radiomics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Survival prediction for brain tumor patients is crucial for surgical planning, treatment selection, and counseling. However, current clinical factors and radiological characteristics are insufficient for accurately predicting survival, especially in heterogeneous tumors like glioma. Artificial intelligence offers powerful tools to capture hidden imaging features that reflect tumor structure and physiology, improving the accuracy of survival prediction.
Survival prediction of patients affected by brain tumors provides essential information to guide surgical planning, adjuvant treatment selection, and patient counseling. Current reliance on clinical factors, such as Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, and simplistic radiological characteristics are, however, inadequate for survival prediction in tumors such as glioma that demonstrate molecular and clinical heterogeneity with variable survival outcomes. Advances in the domain of artificial intelligence have afforded powerful tools to capture a large number of hidden high-dimensional imaging features that reflect abundant information about tumor structure and physiology. Here, we provide an overview of current literature that apply computational analysis tools such as radiomics and machine learning methods to the pipeline of image preprocessing, tumor segmentation, feature extraction, and construction of classifiers to establish survival prediction models based on neuroimaging. We also discuss challenges relating to the development and evaluation of such models and explore ethical issues surrounding the future use of machine learning predictions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available