Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025

Application of Deep Learning-Based Medical Image Segmentation via Orbital Computed Tomography
Published on: November 30, 2022
Traditional Machine Learning Methods versus Deep Learning for Meningioma Classification, Grading, Outcome Prediction,
Krish M Maniar1, Philipp Lassarén2, Aakanksha Rana3
1Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcomes Center (CNOC), Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Background:
Meningiomas are common intracranial tumors. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are emerging to improve accuracy in 4 primary domains: classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation. Such algorithms include both traditional approaches that rely on hand-crafted features and deep learning (DL) techniques that utilize automatic feature extraction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of published traditional ML versus DL algorithms in classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation of meningiomas.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Major databases were searched through September 2021 for publications evaluating traditional ML versus DL models on meningioma management. Performance measures including pooled sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-) along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were derived using random-effects models.
Results:
Five hundred thirty-four records were screened, and 43 articles were included, regarding classification (3 articles), grading (29), outcome prediction (7), and segmentation (6) of meningiomas. Of the 29 studies that reported on grading, 10 could be meta-analyzed with 2 DL models (sensitivity 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96; specificity 0.91, 95% CI: 0.45-0.99; LR+ 10.1, 95% CI: 1.33-137; LR- 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.59) and 8 traditional ML (sensitivity 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.83; specificity 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79-0.98; LR+ 10.5, 95% CI: 2.91-39.5; and LR- 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17-0.49). The insufficient performance metrics reported precluded further statistical analysis of other performance metrics.
Conclusions:
ML on meningiomas is mostly carried out with traditional methods. For meningioma grading, traditional ML methods generally had a higher LR+, while DL models a lower LR-.
More Related Videos
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
07:15Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020