Comprehensive Performance Testing and External Validation of an AI Algorithm to Detect and Segment Brain Metastases
Clicks: 1
ID: 320375
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #123 of 125 articles by views in journal of neuro-oncology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 125 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based models have shown initial promise in imaging brain metastasis; however many lack validation against advanced imaging-informed datasets, precluding external validity and limiting widespread adoption. To overcome these limitations, we performed comprehensive performance testing against reference standard metrics and externally validated an AI algorithm. METHODS: As part of its FDA-clearance process, performance testing of a previously developed U-Net-based AI model was conducted on a multi-institutional cohort with reference standard established via consensus review by three neuroradiologists. External validation was performed on patients imaged with dual sequences (augmented) as well as an open-access dataset (UCSF-BMSR). Evaluation metrics included sensitivity, false positive (FP) rate, positive predictive value (PPV), Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95), normalized surface distance (NSD), and qualitative physician assessment. RESULTS: In the FDA performance testing cohort, the AI algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 90.0% (95% CI: 87.0%-94.0%), DSC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), and average FP rate of 0.57 lesions. In the augmented and open-access external validation cohort, a sensitivity of 81.4% (95% CI: 73.7%-89.1%) and 85.2% (95% CI: 83.0%-87.4%) with an average number of 0.22 and 1.19 FP lesions and DSCs of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.73) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.77-0.78) were calculated, respectively. In the augmented external validation cohort, 46.3% of contours were rated as requiring major revisions. CONCLUSION: This AI algorithm demonstrated promising performance via three unique datasets. However, given the notable rate of contour revisions, these findings support its clinical role not as an autonomous system, but as a human-in-the-loop tool requiring physician oversight.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7167786987
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Rupesh Kotecha, Eyub Y Akdemir, Din Na, Sreenija Yarlagadda, Mauricio Reyes, Francesco Nitti, Alonso N Gutierrez, D Jay M Wieczorek, Yongsook C. Lee, Ranjini Tolakanahalli, Evan D. Bander, Michael W Mcdermott, Manmeet S Ahluwalia, Minesh P Mehta |
| Journal | journal of neuro-oncology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/neuonc/noag152
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.