Anatomical Structures as Graph Nodes: Representation Before Architecture in Paediatric Brain Tumour Localisation

Background/Objectives: Paediatric brain tumour cohorts are small, and deep networks trained directly on volumetric MRI often perform poorly on them. The usual response is a larger architecture. The contribution of the anatomical representation itself has not been isolated as an experimental factor, so it is not known how much of the difficulty is architectural and how much is representational. This study addresses that gap, using supratentorial/infratentorial tumour localisation as a task defined entirely by anatomical geometry. Methods: In 108 paediatric patients with multi-sequence MRI and manual annotation of the tumour and eight anatomical structures, the task, the cohort and the subject-grouped five-fold cross-validation assignment were held fixed while the representation of the input was varied: 3D convolutional networks on raw volumes, the same networks given coordinate and craniocaudal-profile priors, a geometric rule with no fitted parameters, and a patient-level graph whose nodes are anatomical structures, read out by logistic regression or by a graph attention network. All anatomy downstream of the landmarks was predicted out of fold. Comparisons were patient-paired, with bootstrap intervals and Holm-corrected McNemar tests. Results: Balanced accuracy rose from 0.522 on raw voxels to 0.652 with explicit spatial priors, 0.681 for the parameter-free geometric rule, 0.775 for a five-feature linear readout of the graph and 0.838 for the graph attention network; the same decision layer given manual masks reached 0.918. Only the graph attention network exceeded the strongest convolutional baseline significantly (+0.187, Holm-adjusted p = 0.009). Automated segmentation was associated with a 0.143 gap, driven by spatial mislocalisation rather than by missed tumours. Conclusions: For this geometrically defined task and cohort size, representing anatomical structure explicitly was more effective than learning the same geometry from voxels.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16213436
Primary Topic
Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Anatomical Structures as Graph Nodes: Representation Before Architecture in Paediatric Brain Tumour Localisation

Ayşe Keleş
Diagnostics
Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
article

Anatomical Structures as Graph Nodes: Representation Before Architecture in Paediatric Brain Tumour Localisation

Ayşe Keleş
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Paediatric brain tumour cohorts are small, and deep networks trained directly on volumetric MRI often perform poorly on them. The usual response is a larger architecture. The contribution of the anatomical representation itself has not been isolated as an experimental factor, so it is not known how much of the difficulty is architectural and how much is representational. This study addresses that gap, using supratentorial/infratentorial tumour localisation as a task defined entirely by anatomical geometry. Methods: In 108 paediatric patients with multi-sequence MRI and manual annotation of the tumour and eight anatomical structures, the task, the cohort and the subject-grouped five-fold cross-validation assignment were held fixed while the representation of the input was varied: 3D convolutional networks on raw volumes, the same networks given coordinate and craniocaudal-profile priors, a geometric rule with no fitted parameters, and a patient-level graph whose nodes are anatomical structures, read out by logistic regression or by a graph attention network. All anatomy downstream of the landmarks was predicted out of fold. Comparisons were patient-paired, with bootstrap intervals and Holm-corrected McNemar tests. Results: Balanced accuracy rose from 0.522 on raw voxels to 0.652 with explicit spatial priors, 0.681 for the parameter-free geometric rule, 0.775 for a five-feature linear readout of the graph and 0.838 for the graph attention network; the same decision layer given manual masks reached 0.918. Only the graph attention network exceeded the strongest convolutional baseline significantly (+0.187, Holm-adjusted p = 0.009). Automated segmentation was associated with a 0.143 gap, driven by spatial mislocalisation rather than by missed tumours. Conclusions: For this geometrically defined task and cohort size, representing anatomical structure explicitly was more effective than learning the same geometry from voxels.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(21)
Ankara University (TR), Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Anatomical Structures as Graph Nodes: Representation Before Architecture in Paediatric Brain Tumour Localisation — Ayşe Keleş · Diagnostics (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS