Andrea Bink

Lucas Fidon, Michael Aertsen, Florian Kofler et al.

Deep learning models for medical image segmentation can fail unexpectedly and spectacularly for pathological cases and images acquired at different centers than training images, with labeling errors that violate expert knowledge. Such errors undermine the trustworthiness of deep learning models for medical image segmentation. Mechanisms for detecting and correcting such failures are essential for safely translating this technology into clinics and are likely to be a requirement of future regulations on artificial intelligence (AI). In this work, we propose a trustworthy AI theoretical framework and a practical system that can augment any backbone AI system using a fallback method and a fail-safe mechanism based on Dempster-Shafer theory. Our approach relies on an actionable definition of trustworthy AI. Our method automatically discards the voxel-level labeling predicted by the backbone AI that violate expert knowledge and relies on a fallback for those voxels. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed trustworthy AI approach on the largest reported annotated dataset of fetal MRI consisting of 540 manually annotated fetal brain 3D T2w MRIs from 13 centers. Our trustworthy AI method improves the robustness of a state-of-the-art backbone AI for fetal brain MRIs acquired across various centers and for fetuses with various brain abnormalities.

D. Abler, O. Pusterla, A. Joye-Kühnis et al.

Background: Radiomics shows promise in characterizing glioblastoma, but its added value over clinical and molecular predictors has yet to be proven. This study assessed the added value of conventional radiomics (CR) and deep learning (DL) MRI radiomics for glioblastoma prognosis (<= 6 vs > 6 months survival) on a large multi-center dataset. Methods: After patient selection, our curated dataset gathers 1152 glioblastoma (WHO 2016) patients from five Swiss centers and one public source. It included clinical (age, gender), molecular (MGMT, IDH), and baseline MRI data (T1, T1 contrast, FLAIR, T2) with tumor regions. CR and DL models were developed using standard methods and evaluated on internal and external cohorts. Sub-analyses assessed models with different feature sets (imaging-only, clinical/molecular-only, combined-features) and patient subsets (S-1: all patients, S-2: with molecular data, S-3: IDH wildtype). Results: The best performance was observed in the full cohort (S-1). In external validation, the combined-feature CR model achieved an AUC of 0.75, slightly, but significantly outperforming clinical-only (0.74) and imaging-only (0.68) models. DL models showed similar trends, though without statistical significance. In S-2 and S-3, combined models did not outperform clinical-only models. Exploratory analysis of CR models for overall survival prediction suggested greater relevance of imaging data: across all subsets, combined-feature models significantly outperformed clinical-only models, though with a modest advantage of 2-4 C-index points. Conclusions: While confirming the predictive value of anatomical MRI sequences for glioblastoma prognosis, this multi-center study found standard CR and DL radiomics approaches offer minimal added value over demographic predictors such as age and gender.