MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617322690 · doi:10.1002/nbm.3739

DCE‐MRI prediction of survival time for patients with glioblastoma multiforme: using an adaptive neuro‐fuzzy‐based model and nested model selection technique

2017· article· en· W2617322690 on OpenAlexaff
Azimeh N.V. Dehkordi, Alireza Kamali‐Asl, Ning Wen, Tom Mikkelsen, Indrin J. Chetty, Hassan Bagher‐Ebadian

Bibliographic record

VenueNMR in Biomedicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain Institute
FundersIngeborg og Emanuel Jensens Mindelegat til Videnskabelig ForskningVarian Medical Systems
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemMagnetic resonance imagingGlioblastomaFuzzy inference systemComputer scienceNuclear medicineFuzzy logicMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMedicineFuzzy control systemRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study investigates the construction of an Adaptive Neuro‐Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) for the prediction of the survival time of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). ANFIS is trained by the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters estimated by the model selection (MS) technique in dynamic contrast enhanced‐magnetic resonance imaging (DCE‐MRI) data analysis, and patient age. DCE‐MRI investigations of 33 treatment‐naïve patients with GBM were studied. Using the modified Tofts model and MS technique, the following physiologically nested models were constructed: Model 1, no vascular leakage (normal tissue); Model 2, leakage without efflux; Model 3, leakage with bidirectional exchange (influx and efflux). For each patient, the PK parameters of the three models were estimated as follows: blood plasma volume (vp) for Model 1; vp and volume transfer constant (Ktrans) for Model 2; vp, Ktrans and rate constant (kep) for Model 3. Using Cox regression analysis, the best combination of the estimated PK parameters, together with patient age, was identified for the design and training of ANFIS. A K‐fold cross‐validation (K = 33) technique was employed for training, testing and optimization of ANFIS. Given the survival time distribution, three classes of survival were determined and a confusion matrix for the correct classification fraction (CCF) of the trained ANFIS was estimated as an accuracy index of ANFIS's performance. Patient age, kep and ve (Ktrans/kep) of Model 3, and Ktrans of Model 2, were found to be the most effective parameters for training ANFIS. The CCF of the trained ANFIS was 84.8%. High diagonal elements of the confusion matrix (81.8%, 90.1% and 81.8% for Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3, respectively), with low off‐diagonal elements, strongly confirmed the robustness and high performance of the trained ANFIS for predicting the three survival classes. This study confirms that DCE‐MRI PK analysis, combined with the MS technique and ANFIS, allows the construction of a DCE‐MRI‐based fuzzy integrated predictor for the prediction of the survival of patients with GBM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNMR in BiomedicineSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207