The Potential Value of Preoperative MRI Texture and Shape Analysis in Grading Meningiomas: A Preliminary Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Preoperative knowledge of meningioma grade is essential for planning treatment and surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of MRI texture and shape analysis in grading meningiomas. METHODS: A surgical database was reviewed to identify meningioma patients who had undergone tumor resection between January 2015 and December 2016. Preoperative MR images were retrieved and analyzed. Texture and shape analysis was conducted to quantitatively evaluate tumor heterogeneity and morphology. Three machine learning classifiers were trained with these features to build classification models. The performance of the features and classification models was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were included in this study: 21 with high-grade meningiomas and 110 with low-grade meningiomas. Three texture features were selected: Horzl_RLNonUni, S(2,2)SumOfSqs, and WavEnHL_s-3; three shape features were selected: GeoFv, GeoW4, and GeoW5b. The Mann-Whitney test indicated that all six features were significantly different between high-grade and low-grade meningiomas. AUC values were generally greater than 0.50 (range, 0.73 to 0.88). Sensitivities and specificities ranged from 47.62% to 90.48% and 69.09% to 96.36%, respectively. Among the nine classification models obtained, the one built by training the SVM classifier with all six features achieved the best performance, with a sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and AUC of 0.86, 0.87, 0.87, and 0.87, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Texture and shape analysis, especially when combined with a SVM classifier, can provide satisfactory performance in the preoperative determination of meningioma grade and is thus potentially useful for clinical application.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".