← all papers · overview

Text-Guided Refinement of Multi-sequence Glioma Subregion Segmentation with a Vision-Language Foundation Model

Abstract

Background: Accurate glioma subregion delineation is important for radiotherapy planning and longitudinal monitoring, but manual contour correction is time-consuming. Models such as nnU-Net may generalize imperfectly and lack clinician-directed text correction. Purpose: We investigated adapting a three-dimensional (3D) vision-language foundation model for text-guided brain tumor segmentation refinement. Methods: We developed a lightweight VoxTell-based framework. Pretrained VoxTell generated initial masks. Oracle prompts derived from segmentation errors encoded target, action, location, imaging evidence, edit size, and preservation constraints. Frozen Qwen/VoxTell prompt embeddings were injected through trainable projections into its multiscale decoder conditioning; other weights remained frozen. Training, validation, and testing used 901, 100, and 250 BraTS-GLI cases. Cross-dataset transfer was evaluated on 100 meningioma, metastasis, pediatric tumor, and UPENN-GBM cases. Results: On the internal test set using post-contrast T1-weighted input, correct instructions improved subregion Dice similarity coefficient (DSC; enhancing tumor, edema, and necrotic/non-enhancing core) from 0.774±0.158 to 0.796±0.137. They outperformed blank prompts (0.762±0.155; Holm-adjusted p<0.001, d_z=0.71) and contradictory prompts (0.770±0.163; p<0.001, d_z=0.48). In cross-dataset testing, correct instructions improved DSC from 0.527±0.287 to 0.550±0.278 and outperformed contradictory instructions (0.504±0.275; p<0.001, d_z=0.43). Conclusion: A 3D vision-language foundation model can perform instruction-guided refinement of glioma subregion segmentations. Sensitivity to correct, blank, and contradictory prompts suggests text-dependent contour editing rather than nonspecific post-processing, supporting further evaluation as a clinician-in-the-loop tool.

Related papers

Ranked by semantic similarity — how closely each paper's abstract matches this one (100% = near-identical topic).