Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts on CNN-Based Brain Cancer Detection Algorithms

  • Published:
Computational Mathematics and Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Early detection of cancer tumors significantly increases the chances of recovery and usually results in improved quality of life and patient lifespan. In this context, computer systems can help and accelerate health care decision making regarding brain diagnoses, based, for example, on machine learning (ML) algorithms applied to neurological magnetic resonance images (MRIs). In the last decade, several ML approaches have been tested for this purpose, with varied levels of accuracy, precision, and sensitivity. It is already clear that this performance depends on the type of tumor, the quality of the image, the number of training images, and, in the case of supervised training, the quality of previously diagnosed images used for training. An important question remains regarding how the performance of these diagnostic tools is affected by image quality, as it is influenced by several factors common to MRIs, such as artifact like ringing effects, Gaussian noise, reconstruction artifacts associated with lower numbers of measurements, movement artifacts, and so forth. In this paper, we conduct a systematic analysis of this relationship, based on a state-of-art ML diagnosis system, but under different levels of image degradation. Our experiments suggest that severe degradations, leading to reduced mean squared error (MSE) values, can systematically reduce the values of all performance evaluated metrics, but whether such reduction occurs for a specified MSE depends on the type of effect. In addition, for all artifacts tested, we evaluated the range of MSE for which the performance reduction is below a specified threshold. These results can be used in the future to indicate the level of confidence in a certain automatic diagnostic result for different image qualities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Bernstein and M. S. Berger, Neuro-Oncology: the Essentials, Thieme Medical Publishers (2000).

  2. F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68(6), 394–424 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Omran, “The epidemiologic transition: a theory of the epidemiology of population change,” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 49, 509–538 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S. Kesari and C. D. Stiles, “The bad seed: Pdgf receptors link adult neural progenitors to glioma stem cells,” Neuron, 51(2), 151–153 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Sant, C. Allemani, et al., “Stage at diagnosis is a key explanation of differences in breast cancer survival across Europe,” International Journal of Cancer, 106(3), 416–422 (2003); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.11226.

  6. S. Walters, C. Maringe, et al., “Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: A population-based study, 2004–2007,” Thorax, 68(6), 551–564 (2013); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202297.

  7. S. Walters, C. Maringe, et al., “Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000–2007: A population-based study,” British Journal of Cancer, 108(5), 1195–1208 (2013); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.6.

  8. C. S. Thomson and D. Forman, “Cancer survival in England and the influence of early diagnosis: What can we learn from recent EUROCARE results?” British Journal of Cancer, 101, 102–109 (2009); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605399.

  9. W. L. Bi and R. Beroukhim, “Beating the odds: extreme long-term survival with glioblastoma,” Neuro-Oncology, 16(9), 1159–1160 (2014); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nou166.

  10. M. K. Abd-Ellah, A. I. Awad, et al., A Review on Brain Tumor Diagnosis from MRI Images: Practical Implications, Key Achievements, and Lessons Learned, Elsevier Inc. (2019); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2019.05.028; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31173851/.

  11. R.-M. Chen, S.-C. Yang, and C.-M. Wang, “MRI brain tissue classification using unsupervised optimized extenics-based methods,” Computers & Electrical Engineering, 58, 489–501 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. C. Benson, V. Lajish, and K. Rajamani, “Robust classification of mr brain images based on fractal dimension analysis,” 2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI) (2017), pp. 1135–1140.

  13. R. M. Hayward, N. Patronas, E. H. Baker, Vézina, G., P. S. Albert, K. E. Warren, “Inter-observer variability in the measurement of diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 90(1), 57–61 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. R. Meera and P. Anandhan, “A review on automatic detection of brain tumor using computer aided diagnosis system through MRI,” EAI Endorsed Transactions on Energy Web, 5(20) (2018).

  15. S. Goyal, N. Johari, N. Singh, and A. Pal, “Survey on different brain tumor detection methods or algorithms,” International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR), 5(5), 94–99 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Gershgorn, “The inside story of how ai got good enough to dominate silicon valley,” Quartz (2018 (accessed June 26, 2020)).

  17. S. Vieira, W. H. Pinaya, and A. Mechelli, “Using deep learning to investigate the neuroimaging correlates of psychiatric and neurological disorders: Methods and applications,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 74, 58–75 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. S. Rathore, M. Habes, M. A. Iftikhar, A. Shacklett, and C. Davatzikos, “A review on neuroimaging-based classification studies and associated feature extraction methods for Alzheimer’s disease and its prodromal stages,” NeuroImage, 155, 530–548 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. S. Basaia, F. Agosta, L. Wagner, E. Canu, G. Magnani, R. Santangelo, M. Filippi, A. D. N. Initiative, et al., “Automated classification of alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment using a single MRI and deep neural networks,” NeuroImage: Clinical, 21, 101645 (2019).

  20. P. Afshar, K. N. Plataniotis, and A. Mohammadi, “Capsule networks for brain tumor classification based on MRI images and coarse tumor boundaries,” ICASSP 2019–2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (2019), pp. 1368–1372.

  21. P. K. Mallick, S. H. Ryu, S. K. Satapathy, S. Mishra, G. N. Nguyen, and P. Tiwari, “Brain MRI image classification for cancer detection using deep wavelet autoencoder-based deep neural network,” IEEE Access, 7, 46278–46287 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. M. Sajjad, S. Khan, K. Muhammad, W. Wu, A. Ullah, and S. W. Baik, “Multi-grade brain tumor classification using deep cnn with extensive data augmentation,” Journal of Computational Science, 30, 174–182 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. R. Meier, S. Bauer, J. Slotboom, R. Wiest, and M. Reyes, “Patient-specific semi-supervised learning for postoperative brain tumor segmentation,” International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Springer (2014), pp. 714–721.

  24. N. Kumari and S. Saxena, “Review of brain tumor segmentation and classification,” 2018 International Conference on Current Trends Towards Converging Technologies (ICCTCT), IEEE (2018); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/icctct.2018.8551004.

  25. A. Myronenko, “3d MRI brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization,” International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, Springer (2018), pp. 311–320.

  26. S. Nema, A. Dudhane, S. Murala, and S. Naidu, “Rescuenet: An unpaired gan for brain tumor segmentation,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 55, 101641 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. A. M. Rauschecker, J. D. Rudie, L. Xie, J. Wang, M. T. Duong, E. J. Botzolakis, A. M. Kovalovich, J. Egan, T. C. Cook, R. N. Bryan, I. M. Nasrallah, S. Mohan, and J. C. Gee, “Artificial intelligence system approaching neuroradiologist-level differential diagnosis accuracy at brain MRI,” Radiology, 295(3), 626–637 (2020); https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020190283.

  28. B. H. Menze, A. Jakab, S. Bauer, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, K. Farahani, J. Kirby, Y. Burren, N. Porz, J. Slotboom, R. Wiest, et al., “The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats),” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 34(10), 1993–2024 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. S. Bakas, H. Akbari, A. Sotiras, M. Bilello, M. Rozycki, J. S. Kirby, J. B. Freymann, K. Farahani, and C. Davatzikos, “Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features,” Scientific Data, 4, 170117 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. S. Bakas, M. Reyes, A. Jakab, S. Bauer, M. Rempfler, A. Crimi, R. T. Shinohara, C. Berger, S. M. Ha, M. Rozycki, et al., Identifying the Best Machine Learning Algorithms for Brain Tumor Segmentation, Progression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the Brats Challenge, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.02629 (2018).

  31. T. Henry, A. Carré, M. Lerousseau, T. Estienne, C. Robert, N. Paragios, and E. Deutsch, “Brain tumor segmentation with selfensembled, deeply-supervised 3d u-net neural networks: a brats 2020 challenge solution,” International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, Springer (2020), pp. 327–339.

  32. W. Zhang, Y.Wu, B. Yang, S. Hu, L.Wu, and S. Dhelim, “Overview of multi-modal brain tumor mr image segmentation,” Healthcare, 9, 1051 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. S. Pereira, A. Pinto, V. Alves, and C. A. Silva, “Brain tumor segmentation using convolutional neural networks in MRI images,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 35(5), 1240–1251 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. O. Kupyn, V. Budzan, M. Mykhailych, D. Mishkin, and J. Matas, “Deblurgan: Blind motion deblurring using conditional adversarial networks,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2018), pp. 8183–8192.

  35. S. Dodge and L. Karam, “Understanding how image quality affects deep neural networks,” 2016 Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (2016), pp. 1–6.

  36. J. Redmon, S. K. Divvala, R. B. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 27–30, 2016 (2016), pp. 779–788; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.91; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.91.

  37. S. Nah, T. H. Kim, and K. M. Lee, “Deep multi-scale convolutional neural network for dynamic scene deblurring,” 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21–26, 2017 (2017), pp. 257–265; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.35; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.35.

  38. H. Jeelani, J. Martin, F. Vasquez, M. Salerno, and D. S. Weller, “Image quality affects deep learning reconstruction of MRI,” 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018) (2018), pp. 357–360.

  39. B. Koonce, “Resnet 34,” in: Convolutional Neural Networks with Swift for Tensorflow, Springer (2021), pp. 51–61.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil

    M. C. Q. Farias, P. H. de Castro Oliveira & G. dos Santos Lopes

  2. Faculdade Gama, University of Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil

    C. J. Miosso & J. A. Lima

Authors
  1. M. C. Q. Farias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. H. de Castro Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. dos Santos Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. J. Miosso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. A. Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. C. Q. Farias.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farias, M.C.Q., de Castro Oliveira, P.H., dos Santos Lopes, G. et al. The Influence of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifacts on CNN-Based Brain Cancer Detection Algorithms. Comput Math Model 33, 211–229 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10598-023-09567-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10598-023-09567-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation