Accuracy of conventional MRI for preoperative diagnosis of intracranial tumors: A retrospective cohort study of 762 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered a valuable tool for preoperative diagnosis of intracranial tumors. We assessed its accuracy in the diagnosis of intracranial tumors in usual clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI reports of 762 patients who had undergone conventional brain MRI prior to surgery were retrospectively reviewed. A 4-grade scoring system was devised to establish diagnostic agreement. Each tumor type was compared with the corresponding pathological diagnoses by dichotomization. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated for the overall patient population as well as for each tumor type. RESULTS: 664 cases (87.1%) were tumor-positive, and 98 cases (12.9%) were tumor-negative. The most common tumor types were meningiomas, gliomas, pituitary adenomas and schwannomas. These four types together comprised 74.5% of all cases reviewed. Sensitivity and PPV for the overall population were 72.0-90.7% and 91.9-95.4%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy differed among tumor types. Meningiomas, pituitary adenomas, schwannomas and cholesteatomas were more likely to be diagnosed correctly (sensitivities were 82.6-96.9%, 86.1-96.7%, 88.9-98.2% and 91.3-100.0%, respectively); while some other types like solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) seemed difficult to identify. Gliomas tended to be confused with metastases, meningiomas with SFTs, and pituitary adenomas with craniopharyngiomas. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of conventional MRI for diagnosing intracranial tumors is generally satisfactory but should not be too heavily relied upon, especially for certain tumor types. In cases of discrepancy, neurosurgeons are encouraged to confer with the reporting neuroradiologists to achieve optimal preoperative diagnoses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".