Deep Learning versus Classical Regression for Brain Tumor Patient Survival Prediction

Deep learning for regression tasks on medical imaging data has shown promising results. However, compared to other approaches, their power is strongly linked to the dataset size. In this study, we evaluate 3D-convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and classical regression methods with hand-crafted features for survival time regression of patients with high grade brain tumors. The tested CNNs for regression showed promising but unstable results. The best performing deep learning approach reached an accuracy of 51.5% on held-out samples of the training set. All tested deep learning experiments were outperformed by a Support Vector Classifier (SVC) using 30 radiomic features. The investigated features included intensity, shape, location and deep features. The submitted method to the BraTS 2018 survival prediction challenge is an ensemble of SVCs, which reached a cross-validated accuracy of 72.2% on the BraTS 2018 training set, 57.1% on the validation set, and 42.9% on the testing set. The results suggest that more training data is necessary for a stable performance of a CNN model for direct regression from magnetic resonance images, and that non-imaging clinical patient information is crucial along with imaging information.Comment: Contribution to The International Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge 2018, survival prediction tas

Brain Tumor Synthetic Segmentation in 3D Multimodal MRI Scans

The magnetic resonance (MR) analysis of brain tumors is widely used for diagnosis and examination of tumor subregions. The overlapping area among the intensity distribution of healthy, enhancing, non-enhancing, and edema regions makes the automatic segmentation a challenging task. Here, we show that a convolutional neural network trained on high-contrast images can transform the intensity distribution of brain lesions in its internal subregions. Specifically, a generative adversarial network (GAN) is extended to synthesize high-contrast images. A comparison of these synthetic images and real images of brain tumor tissue in MR scans showed significant segmentation improvement and decreased the number of real channels for segmentation. The synthetic images are used as a substitute for real channels and can bypass real modalities in the multimodal brain tumor segmentation framework. Segmentation results on BraTS 2019 dataset demonstrate that our proposed approach can efficiently segment the tumor areas. In the end, we predict patient survival time based on volumetric features of the tumor subregions as well as the age of each case through several regression models

A Survey on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis

Deep learning algorithms, in particular convolutional networks, have rapidly become a methodology of choice for analyzing medical images. This paper reviews the major deep learning concepts pertinent to medical image analysis and summarizes over 300 contributions to the field, most of which appeared in the last year. We survey the use of deep learning for image classification, object detection, segmentation, registration, and other tasks and provide concise overviews of studies per application area. Open challenges and directions for future research are discussed.Comment: Revised survey includes expanded discussion section and reworked introductory section on common deep architectures. Added missed papers from before Feb 1st 201

Cancer diagnosis using deep learning: A bibliographic review

In this paper, we first describe the basics of the field of cancer diagnosis, which includes steps of cancer diagnosis followed by the typical classification methods used by doctors, providing a historical idea of cancer classification techniques to the readers. These methods include Asymmetry, Border, Color and Diameter (ABCD) method, seven-point detection method, Menzies method, and pattern analysis. They are used regularly by doctors for cancer diagnosis, although they are not considered very efficient for obtaining better performance. Moreover, considering all types of audience, the basic evaluation criteria are also discussed. The criteria include the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve), Area under the ROC curve (AUC), F1 score, accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, precision, dice-coefficient, average accuracy, and Jaccard index. Previously used methods are considered inefficient, asking for better and smarter methods for cancer diagnosis. Artificial intelligence and cancer diagnosis are gaining attention as a way to define better diagnostic tools. In particular, deep neural networks can be successfully used for intelligent image analysis. The basic framework of how this machine learning works on medical imaging is provided in this study, i.e., pre-processing, image segmentation and post-processing. The second part of this manuscript describes the different deep learning techniques, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), generative adversarial models (GANs), deep autoencoders (DANs), restricted Boltzmann’s machine (RBM), stacked autoencoders (SAE), convolutional autoencoders (CAE), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), long short-term memory (LTSM), multi-scale convolutional neural network (M-CNN), multi-instance learning convolutional neural network (MIL-CNN). For each technique, we provide Python codes, to allow interested readers to experiment with the cited algorithms on their own diagnostic problems. The third part of this manuscript compiles the successfully applied deep learning models for different types of cancers. Considering the length of the manuscript, we restrict ourselves to the discussion of breast cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, and skin cancer. The purpose of this bibliographic review is to provide researchers opting to work in implementing deep learning and artificial neural networks for cancer diagnosis a knowledge from scratch of the state-of-the-art achievements

Improving Patch-Based Convolutional Neural Networks for MRI Brain Tumor Segmentation by Leveraging Location Information.

The manual brain tumor annotation process is time consuming and resource consuming, therefore, an automated and accurate brain tumor segmentation tool is greatly in demand. In this paper, we introduce a novel method to integrate location information with the state-of-the-art patch-based neural networks for brain tumor segmentation. This is motivated by the observation that lesions are not uniformly distributed across different brain parcellation regions and that a locality-sensitive segmentation is likely to obtain better segmentation accuracy. Toward this, we use an existing brain parcellation atlas in the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space and map this atlas to the individual subject data. This mapped atlas in the subject data space is integrated with structural Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging data, and patch-based neural networks, including 3D U-Net and DeepMedic, are trained to classify the different brain lesions. Multiple state-of-the-art neural networks are trained and integrated with XGBoost fusion in the proposed two-level ensemble method. The first level reduces the uncertainty of the same type of models with different seed initializations, and the second level leverages the advantages of different types of neural network models. The proposed location information fusion method improves the segmentation performance of state-of-the-art networks including 3D U-Net and DeepMedic. Our proposed ensemble also achieves better segmentation performance compared to the state-of-the-art networks in BraTS 2017 and rivals state-of-the-art networks in BraTS 2018. Detailed results are provided on the public multimodal brain tumor segmentation (BraTS) benchmarks

Computer-aided analysis of complex neurological data for age-based classification of upper limbs motor performance and radiomics-based survival prediction of brain tumors

Nowadays, the availability of an ever-increasing amount of digital medical data collected through heterogeneous sources such as healthcare systems, sensors, and mobile consumer technologies makes it possible to perform computer-aided analyses aimed at improving the knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment of medical conditions. In this thesis, we worked with two medical datasets that can be used to study two different types of neurological disorders, motor control disorders (e.g., Parkinson’s disease) and brain tumors. The first dataset is comprised of the results of digital motor tests of the upper limbs that have been taken by more than 10000 users of a free and publicly available mobile application called MotorBrain. Motor tests are used by neurologists to assess human motor performance and support the diagnosis of disorders affecting motor control. Our first goal was to analyse the MotorBrain data with statistical methods to investigate the age-related behavior patterns of healthy subjects for the different motor tests included in the application. Results show that the collected data reveal the typical degradation of motor performance that is common with aging, thus providing support for the appropriateness of the considered approach to motor performance data collection and potentially helping neurologist to identify neurological disorders at an early stage by comparing new data with the available normative data. At the same time, the results highlight problems that emerge when data collection is performed in an unsupervised non-clinical setting. Based on the results of the statistical analysis, we used machine learning to automatically classify users according to their motor performance. The idea is to use such classification to automatically flag cases whose motor performance differs significantly from the typical performance of their age group and thus require manual inspection from a neurologist. In particular, we used random forest and logistic regression classification techniques with Minimum Redundancy, Maximum Relevance (MRMR) and Recursive Feature Elimination with SVM (RFE-SVM) feature selection methods. For each motor test, we were able to achieve good average accuracy in discriminating motor performance of young and old adults, with the random forest method leading to better results. Similar results were obtained for multi-class discrimination based on 5 age groups. The second dataset we worked with consists of a standard set of MRI images of brain tumors that is often used to develop and validate radiomics-based methods for overall survival (OS) classification of brain gliomas. We specifically focused on two important steps of the radiomics process, segmentation and feature selection. We first used the MRI dataset to empirically evaluate the impact of six different segmentation algorithms – five Convolutional Neural Networks and the STAPLE-fusion method - and four multiregional radiomic models (Whole Tumor (WT), 3-subregions, 6-subregions, and 21-subregions) on OS classification. Results of the evaluation show that the 3-subregions radiomics model has high predictive power but poor robustness while the 6-subregions and 21-subregions radiomics models are more robust but have low predictive power. The poor robustness of the 3-subregions radiomics model was associated with highly variable and inferior segmentation of tumor core and active tumor subregions as quantified by the Hausdorff metric. Failure analysis revealed that the WT radiomics model, the 6-subregions radiomics model, and the 21-subregions radiomics model failed for some subjects, possibly because of inaccurate segmentation of the WT volume. Moreover, short-term survivors were largely misclassified by the radiomic models and were associated to large segmentation errors. The STAPLE fusion method was able to circumvent these segmentation errors but was not found to be the ultimate solution in terms of its predictive power.Nowadays, the availability of an ever-increasing amount of digital medical data collected through heterogeneous sources such as healthcare systems, sensors, and mobile consumer technologies makes it possible to perform computer-aided analyses aimed at improving the knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment of medical conditions. In this thesis, we worked with two medical datasets that can be used to study two different types of neurological disorders, motor control disorders (e.g., Parkinson’s disease) and brain tumors. The first dataset is comprised of the results of digital motor tests of the upper limbs that have been taken by more than 10000 users of a free and publicly available mobile application called MotorBrain. Motor tests are used by neurologists to assess human motor performance and support the diagnosis of disorders affecting motor control. Our first goal was to analyse the MotorBrain data with statistical methods to investigate the age-related behavior patterns of healthy subjects for the different motor tests included in the application. Results show that the collected data reveal the typical degradation of motor performance that is common with aging, thus providing support for the appropriateness of the considered approach to motor performance data collection and potentially helping neurologist to identify neurological disorders at an early stage by comparing new data with the available normative data. At the same time, the results highlight problems that emerge when data collection is performed in an unsupervised non-clinical setting. Based on the results of the statistical analysis, we used machine learning to automatically classify users according to their motor performance. The idea is to use such classification to automatically flag cases whose motor performance differs significantly from the typical performance of their age group and thus require manual inspection from a neurologist. In particular, we used random forest and logistic regression classification techniques with Minimum Redundancy, Maximum Relevance (MRMR) and Recursive Feature Elimination with SVM (RFE-SVM) feature selection methods. For each motor test, we were able to achieve good average accuracy in discriminating motor performance of young and old adults, with the random forest method leading to better results. Similar results were obtained for multi-class discrimination based on 5 age groups. The second dataset we worked with consists of a standard set of MRI images of brain tumors that is often used to develop and validate radiomics-based methods for overall survival (OS) classification of brain gliomas. We specifically focused on two important steps of the radiomics process, segmentation and feature selection. We first used the MRI dataset to empirically evaluate the impact of six different segmentation algorithms – five Convolutional Neural Networks and the STAPLE-fusion method - and four multiregional radiomic models (Whole Tumor (WT), 3-subregions, 6-subregions, and 21-subregions) on OS classification. Results of the evaluation show that the 3-subregions radiomics model has high predictive power but poor robustness while the 6-subregions and 21-subregions radiomics models are more robust but have low predictive power. The poor robustness of the 3-subregions radiomics model was associated with highly variable and inferior segmentation of tumor core and active tumor subregions as quantified by the Hausdorff metric. Failure analysis revealed that the WT radiomics model, the 6-subregions radiomics model, and the 21-subregions radiomics model failed for some subjects, possibly because of inaccurate segmentation of the WT volume. Moreover, short-term survivors were largely misclassified by the radiomic models and were associated to large segmentation errors. The STAPLE fusion method was able to circumvent these segmentation errors but was not found to be the ultimate solution in terms of its predictive power

Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge

International Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challengeGliomas are the most common primary brain malignancies, with different degrees of aggressiveness, variable prognosis and various heterogeneous histologic sub-regions, i.e., peritumoral edematous/invaded tissue, necrotic core, active and non-enhancing core. This intrinsic heterogeneity is also portrayed in their radio-phenotype, as their sub-regions are depicted by varying intensity profiles disseminated across multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans, reflecting varying biological properties. Their heterogeneous shape, extent, and location are some of the factors that make these tumors difficult to resect, and in some cases inoperable. The amount of resected tumor is a factor also considered in longitudinal scans, when evaluating the apparent tumor for potential diagnosis of progression. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that accurate segmentation of the various tumor sub-regions can offer the basis for quantitative image analysis towards prediction of patient overall survival. This study assesses the state-of-the-art machine learning (ML) methods used for brain tumor image analysis in mpMRI scans, during the last seven instances of the International Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenge, i.e., 2012-2018. Specifically, we focus on i) evaluating segmentations of the various glioma sub-regions in pre-operative mpMRI scans, ii) assessing potential tumor progression by virtue of longitudinal growth of tumor sub-regions, beyond use of the RECIST/RANO criteria, and iii) predicting the overall survival from pre-operative mpMRI scans of patients that underwent gross total resection. Finally, we investigate the challenge of identifying the best ML algorithms for each of these tasks, considering that apart from being diverse on each instance of the challenge, the multi-institutional mpMRI BraTS dataset has also been a continuously evolving/growing dataset.This work was supported in part by the 1) National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the NIH R01 grant with award number R01-NS042645, 2) Informatics Technology for Cancer Research (ITCR) program of the NCI/NIH U24 grant with award number U24-CA189523, 3) Swiss Cancer League, under award number KFS-3979-08-2016, 4) Swiss National Science Foundation, under award number 169607.Article signat per 427 autors/es: Spyridon Bakas1,2,3,†,‡,∗ , Mauricio Reyes4,† , Andras Jakab5,†,‡ , Stefan Bauer4,6,169,† , Markus Rempfler9,65,127,† , Alessandro Crimi7,† , Russell Takeshi Shinohara1,8,† , Christoph Berger9,† , Sung Min Ha1,2,† , Martin Rozycki1,2,† , Marcel Prastawa10,† , Esther Alberts9,65,127,† , Jana Lipkova9,65,127,† , John Freymann11,12,‡ , Justin Kirby11,12,‡ , Michel Bilello1,2,‡ , Hassan M. Fathallah-Shaykh13,‡ , Roland Wiest4,6,‡ , Jan Kirschke126,‡ , Benedikt Wiestler126,‡ , Rivka Colen14,‡ , Aikaterini Kotrotsou14,‡ , Pamela Lamontagne15,‡ , Daniel Marcus16,17,‡ , Mikhail Milchenko16,17,‡ , Arash Nazeri17,‡ , Marc-Andr Weber18,‡ , Abhishek Mahajan19,‡ , Ujjwal Baid20,‡ , Elizabeth Gerstner123,124,‡ , Dongjin Kwon1,2,† , Gagan Acharya107, Manu Agarwal109, Mahbubul Alam33 , Alberto Albiol34, Antonio Albiol34, Francisco J. Albiol35, Varghese Alex107, Nigel Allinson143, Pedro H. A. Amorim159, Abhijit Amrutkar107, Ganesh Anand107, Simon Andermatt152, Tal Arbel92, Pablo Arbelaez134, Aaron Avery60, Muneeza Azmat62, Pranjal B.107, Wenjia Bai128, Subhashis Banerjee36,37, Bill Barth2 , Thomas Batchelder33, Kayhan Batmanghelich88, Enzo Battistella42,43 , Andrew Beers123,124, Mikhail Belyaev137, Martin Bendszus23, Eze Benson38, Jose Bernal40 , Halandur Nagaraja Bharath141, George Biros62, Sotirios Bisdas76, James Brown123,124, Mariano Cabezas40, Shilei Cao67, Jorge M. Cardoso76, Eric N Carver41, Adri Casamitjana138, Laura Silvana Castillo134, Marcel Cat138, Philippe Cattin152, Albert Cerigues ´ 40, Vinicius S. Chagas159 , Siddhartha Chandra42, Yi-Ju Chang45, Shiyu Chang156, Ken Chang123,124, Joseph Chazalon29 , Shengcong Chen25, Wei Chen46, Jefferson W Chen80, Zhaolin Chen130, Kun Cheng120, Ahana Roy Choudhury47, Roger Chylla60, Albert Clrigues40, Steven Colleman141, Ramiro German Rodriguez Colmeiro149,150,151, Marc Combalia138, Anthony Costa122, Xiaomeng Cui115, Zhenzhen Dai41, Lutao Dai50, Laura Alexandra Daza134, Eric Deutsch43, Changxing Ding25, Chao Dong65 , Shidu Dong155, Wojciech Dudzik71,72, Zach Eaton-Rosen76, Gary Egan130, Guilherme Escudero159, Tho Estienne42,43, Richard Everson87, Jonathan Fabrizio29, Yong Fan1,2 , Longwei Fang54,55, Xue Feng27, Enzo Ferrante128, Lucas Fidon42, Martin Fischer95, Andrew P. French38,39 , Naomi Fridman57, Huan Fu90, David Fuentes58, Yaozong Gao68, Evan Gates58, David Gering60 , Amir Gholami61, Willi Gierke95, Ben Glocker128, Mingming Gong88,89, Sandra Gonzlez-Vill40, T. Grosges151, Yuanfang Guan108, Sheng Guo64, Sudeep Gupta19, Woo-Sup Han63, Il Song Han63 , Konstantin Harmuth95, Huiguang He54,55,56, Aura Hernndez-Sabat100, Evelyn Herrmann102 , Naveen Himthani62, Winston Hsu111, Cheyu Hsu111, Xiaojun Hu64, Xiaobin Hu65, Yan Hu66, Yifan Hu117, Rui Hua68,69, Teng-Yi Huang45, Weilin Huang64, Sabine Van Huffel141, Quan Huo68, Vivek HV70, Khan M. Iftekharuddin33, Fabian Isensee22, Mobarakol Islam81,82, Aaron S. Jackson38 , Sachin R. Jambawalikar48, Andrew Jesson92, Weijian Jian119, Peter Jin61, V Jeya Maria Jose82,83 , Alain Jungo4 , Bernhard Kainz128, Konstantinos Kamnitsas128, Po-Yu Kao79, Ayush Karnawat129 , Thomas Kellermeier95, Adel Kermi74, Kurt Keutzer61, Mohamed Tarek Khadir75, Mahendra Khened107, Philipp Kickingereder23, Geena Kim135, Nik King60, Haley Knapp60, Urspeter Knecht4 , Lisa Kohli60, Deren Kong64, Xiangmao Kong115, Simon Koppers32, Avinash Kori107, Ganapathy Krishnamurthi107, Egor Krivov137, Piyush Kumar47, Kaisar Kushibar40, Dmitrii Lachinov84,85 , Tryphon Lambrou143, Joon Lee41, Chengen Lee111, Yuehchou Lee111, Matthew Chung Hai Lee128 , Szidonia Lefkovits96, Laszlo Lefkovits97, James Levitt62, Tengfei Li51, Hongwei Li65, Wenqi Li76,77 , Hongyang Li108, Xiaochuan Li110, Yuexiang Li133, Heng Li51, Zhenye Li146, Xiaoyu Li67, Zeju Li158 , XiaoGang Li162, Wenqi Li76,77, Zheng-Shen Lin45, Fengming Lin115, Pietro Lio153, Chang Liu41 , Boqiang Liu46, Xiang Liu67, Mingyuan Liu114, Ju Liu115,116, Luyan Liu112, Xavier Llado´ 40, Marc Moreno Lopez132, Pablo Ribalta Lorenzo72, Zhentai Lu53, Lin Luo31, Zhigang Luo162, Jun Ma73 , Kai Ma117, Thomas Mackie60, Anant Madabhushi129, Issam Mahmoudi74, Klaus H. Maier-Hein22 , Pradipta Maji36, CP Mammen161, Andreas Mang165, B. S. Manjunath79, Michal Marcinkiewicz71 , Steven McDonagh128, Stephen McKenna157, Richard McKinley6 , Miriam Mehl166, Sachin Mehta91 , Raghav Mehta92, Raphael Meier4,6 , Christoph Meinel95, Dorit Merhof32, Craig Meyer27,28, Robert Miller131, Sushmita Mitra36, Aliasgar Moiyadi19, David Molina-Garcia142, Miguel A.B. Monteiro105 , Grzegorz Mrukwa71,72, Andriy Myronenko21, Jakub Nalepa71,72, Thuyen Ngo79, Dong Nie113, Holly Ning131, Chen Niu67, Nicholas K Nuechterlein91, Eric Oermann122, Arlindo Oliveira105,106, Diego D. C. Oliveira159, Arnau Oliver40, Alexander F. I. Osman140, Yu-Nian Ou45, Sebastien Ourselin76 , Nikos Paragios42,44, Moo Sung Park121, Brad Paschke60, J. Gregory Pauloski58, Kamlesh Pawar130, Nick Pawlowski128, Linmin Pei33, Suting Peng46, Silvio M. Pereira159, Julian Perez-Beteta142, Victor M. Perez-Garcia142, Simon Pezold152, Bao Pham104, Ashish Phophalia136 , Gemma Piella101, G.N. Pillai109, Marie Piraud65, Maxim Pisov137, Anmol Popli109, Michael P. Pound38, Reza Pourreza131, Prateek Prasanna129, Vesna Pr?kovska99, Tony P. Pridmore38, Santi Puch99, lodie Puybareau29, Buyue Qian67, Xu Qiao46, Martin Rajchl128, Swapnil Rane19, Michael Rebsamen4 , Hongliang Ren82, Xuhua Ren112, Karthik Revanuru139, Mina Rezaei95, Oliver Rippel32, Luis Carlos Rivera134, Charlotte Robert43, Bruce Rosen123,124, Daniel Rueckert128 , Mohammed Safwan107, Mostafa Salem40, Joaquim Salvi40, Irina Sanchez138, Irina Snchez99 , Heitor M. Santos159, Emmett Sartor160, Dawid Schellingerhout59, Klaudius Scheufele166, Matthew R. Scott64, Artur A. Scussel159, Sara Sedlar139, Juan Pablo Serrano-Rubio86, N. Jon Shah130 , Nameetha Shah139, Mazhar Shaikh107, B. Uma Shankar36, Zeina Shboul33, Haipeng Shen50 , Dinggang Shen113, Linlin Shen133, Haocheng Shen157, Varun Shenoy61, Feng Shi68, Hyung Eun Shin121, Hai Shu52, Diana Sima141, Matthew Sinclair128, Orjan Smedby167, James M. Snyder41 , Mohammadreza Soltaninejad143, Guidong Song145, Mehul Soni107, Jean Stawiaski78, Shashank Subramanian62, Li Sun30, Roger Sun42,43, Jiawei Sun46, Kay Sun60, Yu Sun69, Guoxia Sun115 , Shuang Sun115, Yannick R Suter4 , Laszlo Szilagyi97, Sanjay Talbar20, Dacheng Tao26, Dacheng Tao90, Zhongzhao Teng154, Siddhesh Thakur20, Meenakshi H Thakur19, Sameer Tharakan62 , Pallavi Tiwari129, Guillaume Tochon29, Tuan Tran103, Yuhsiang M. Tsai111, Kuan-Lun Tseng111 , Tran Anh Tuan103, Vadim Turlapov85, Nicholas Tustison28, Maria Vakalopoulou42,43, Sergi Valverde40, Rami Vanguri48,49, Evgeny Vasiliev85, Jonathan Ventura132, Luis Vera142, Tom Vercauteren76,77, C. A. Verrastro149,150, Lasitha Vidyaratne33, Veronica Vilaplana138, Ajeet Vivekanandan60, Guotai Wang76,77, Qian Wang112, Chiatse J. Wang111, Weichung Wang111, Duo Wang153, Ruixuan Wang157, Yuanyuan Wang158, Chunliang Wang167, Guotai Wang76,77, Ning Wen41, Xin Wen67, Leon Weninger32, Wolfgang Wick24, Shaocheng Wu108, Qiang Wu115,116 , Yihong Wu144, Yong Xia66, Yanwu Xu88, Xiaowen Xu115, Peiyuan Xu117, Tsai-Ling Yang45 , Xiaoping Yang73, Hao-Yu Yang93,94, Junlin Yang93, Haojin Yang95, Guang Yang170, Hongdou Yao98, Xujiong Ye143, Changchang Yin67, Brett Young-Moxon60, Jinhua Yu158, Xiangyu Yue61 , Songtao Zhang30, Angela Zhang79, Kun Zhang89, Xuejie Zhang98, Lichi Zhang112, Xiaoyue Zhang118, Yazhuo Zhang145,146,147, Lei Zhang143, Jianguo Zhang157, Xiang Zhang162, Tianhao Zhang168, Sicheng Zhao61, Yu Zhao65, Xiaomei Zhao144,55, Liang Zhao163,164, Yefeng Zheng117 , Liming Zhong53, Chenhong Zhou25, Xiaobing Zhou98, Fan Zhou51, Hongtu Zhu51, Jin Zhu153, Ying Zhuge131, Weiwei Zong41, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer123,124,† , Keyvan Farahani12,†,‡ , Christos Davatzikos1,2,†,‡ , Koen van Leemput123,124,125,† , and Bjoern Menze9,65,127,†,∗Preprin