Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 3 min ago
PreprintCC BYbioRxiv

Slice, Subtract, Segment: Efficient 2D and Physiologically Informed 3D Brain Tumor Segmentation

  1. 1Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology

Abstract

Background. Automated segmentation of glioma subregions on multiparametric MRI can be improved by changing either the network architecture or the information presented to the network. These two design levers are usually studied together, which makes their individual contributions difficult to see. We present an integrated analysis of two completed, independent studies, each of which isolates one lever. Methods. In the architecture-level study (Slice), SIBA-UNet - a 2D U-Net combining depthwise separable convolution, inverted-bottleneck blocks and attention-guided skip fusion - was trained on 128 x 128 multimodal slices from BraTS 2020 with a patient-level split, and a sigmoid decision threshold was selected on validation data. In the representation-level study (Subtract), CMSR-3D augmented the four standard MRI sequences with four voxel-wise cross-modal subtraction maps (T1-T1CE, T2-FLAIR, FLAIR-T1CE, T2-T1CE) and evaluated 4-, 6- and 8-channel inputs with an identical 3D U-Net on 1,251 BraTS-GLI 2023 cases (1,001/125/125 split). Results. SIBA-UNet reached an overall validation Dice of 0.8601 at a validation-selected threshold of 0.51, with reported subregion Dice of 0.8795 (necrotic core), 0.8501 (edema) and 0.9125 (enhancing tumor); the source ablation was only partially reported. With the architecture held fixed, the 8-channel CMSR-3D configuration gave the highest mean Dice among the evaluated inputs (0.8699 vs. 0.8534 for the 4-channel baseline) and the lowest mean HD95 (5.9859 vs. 8.2308), whereas either two-map subset alone changed mean Dice by at most 0.0037. Conclusions. Architecture design and input-representation design are separable levers for brain tumor segmentation. The controlled representation ablation indicates that the complete set of subtraction maps was more informative than either subset under a fixed 3D U-Net. Both studies were evaluated internally on their respective datasets, and their numerical results are not directly compared because the datasets, dimensionality and evaluation protocols differ.

Related

  1. Robust Chromosome Segmentation in Sparse Single-Cell Whole-Genome Sequencing Using a k-Segment Constrained Hidden Markov Model
    Trevor Ridgley, Peter Chovanec, Shiyang He +1
    bioRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textGenetics & genomicsbioRxivPMC
  2. FDUNet-LRSA: efficient frequency-adaptive segmentation for automated crop disease inspection
    Ru Han, Lei Shu, Grzegorz Cielniak +6
    Frontiers in Plant SciencePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textPlant biologyCrossrefEurope PMCPMC
  3. EG-BINN: Parameter-Efficient Ensembling of Gated Biologically Informed Neural Networks for Epigenetic Age Estimation
    Travyse Edwards, Qi Long, Li Shen
    bioRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textBioinformatics & computational biologybioRxivPMC
  4. Pharmacokinetics and Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Mycobacteriophages: Insights into Pulmonary Distribution and Clearance.
    Rajnikant Sharma, Ramya Mahadevan, Sai Divyash +11
    Molecular pharmaceuticsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull text1 citedEcologyEurope PMC
  5. FACS-based isolation and recovery of physiologically distinct bacterial subpopulations from infected insect hosts
    Hasna Toukabri, Christophe Buisson, Yves Le Vern +3
    MethodsXPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textZoology & animal behaviourHALEurope PMC
BibTeX
@misc{chhetri2026slice,
  title = {{Slice, Subtract, Segment: Efficient 2D and Physiologically Informed 3D Brain Tumor Segmentation}},
  author = {L. Chhetri and A. Anand},
  howpublished = {bioRxiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.64898/2026.10.04.756528},
  url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.04.756528v1},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Slice, Subtract, Segment: Efficient 2D and Physiologically Informed 3D Brain Tumor Segmentation
AU  - L. Chhetri
AU  - A. Anand
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/04
PB  - bioRxiv
DO  - 10.64898/2026.10.04.756528
UR  - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.04.756528v1
AB  - Background. Automated segmentation of glioma subregions on multiparametric MRI can be improved by changing either the network architecture or the information presented to the network. These two design levers are usually studied together, which makes their individual contributions difficult to see. We present an integrated analysis of two completed, independent studies, each of which isolates one lever. Methods. In the architecture-level study (Slice), SIBA-UNet - a 2D U-Net combining depthwise separable convolution, inverted-bottleneck blocks and attention-guided skip fusion - was trained on 128 x 128 multimodal slices from BraTS 2020 with a patient-level split, and a sigmoid decision threshold was selected on validation data. In the representation-level study (Subtract), CMSR-3D augmented the four standard MRI sequences with four voxel-wise cross-modal subtraction maps (T1-T1CE, T2-FLAIR, FLAIR-T1CE, T2-T1CE) and evaluated 4-, 6- and 8-channel inputs with an identical 3D U-Net on 1,251 BraTS-GLI 2023 cases (1,001/125/125 split). Results. SIBA-UNet reached an overall validation Dice of 0.8601 at a validation-selected threshold of 0.51, with reported subregion Dice of 0.8795 (necrotic core), 0.8501 (edema) and 0.9125 (enhancing tumor); the source ablation was only partially reported. With the architecture held fixed, the 8-channel CMSR-3D configuration gave the highest mean Dice among the evaluated inputs (0.8699 vs. 0.8534 for the 4-channel baseline) and the lowest mean HD95 (5.9859 vs. 8.2308), whereas either two-map subset alone changed mean Dice by at most 0.0037. Conclusions. Architecture design and input-representation design are separable levers for brain tumor segmentation. The controlled representation ablation indicates that the complete set of subtraction maps was more informative than either subset under a fixed 3D U-Net. Both studies were evaluated internally on their respective datasets, and their numerical results are not directly compared because the datasets, dimensionality and evaluation protocols differ.
ER  -