MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091167916 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.558162

Radiomic Features From Multi-Parameter MRI Combined With Clinical Parameters Predict Molecular Subgroups in Patients With Medulloblastoma

2020· article· en· W3091167916 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jing Yan, Lei Liu, Weiwei Wang, Yuanshen Zhao, Kay Ka‐Wai Li, Ke Li, Li Wang, Binke Yuan, Haiyang Geng, Shenghai Zhang, Zhen Liu, Wenchao Duan, Yunbo Zhan, Dongling Pei, Haibiao Zhao, Tao Sun, Chen Sun, Wenqing Wang, Xuanke Hong, Xiangxiang Wang, Yu Guo, Wencai Li, Jingliang Cheng, Xianzhi Liu, Ho‐Keung Ng, Zhicheng Li, Zhenyu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedulloblastomaSonic hedgehogMagnetic resonance imagingCohortMedicineWnt signaling pathwayRandom forestInternal medicineOncologyMachine learningPathologyRadiologyComputer scienceBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2016 WHO Classification of Central Nervous System tumors has included four molecular subgroups under medulloblastoma (MB) as sonic hedgehog (SHH), wingless (WNT), Grade 3 and Group 4. We aimed to develop machine learning models for predicting MB molecular subgroups based on multi-parameter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomics, tumor locations and clinical factors. 122 MB patients were enrolled retrospectively. After selecting robust, nonredundant and relevant features from 5529 extracted radiomics features, a random forest model was constructed based on a training cohort (n = 92) and evaluated on a testing cohort (n = 30). By combining the radiographic features and clinical parameters, two combined prediction models were also built. The subgroup can be classified using an 11-feature radiomics model with a high area under curve (AUC) of 0.8264 for WNT and modest AUCs of 0.6683, 0.6004 and 0.6979 for SHH, Group 3 and Group 4 in testing cohort, respectively. Incorporating location and hydrocephalus into the radiomics model resulted in improved AUCs of 0.8403 and 0.8317 for WNT and SHH, respectively. After adding gender and age, the AUCs for WNT and SHH were further improved to 0.9097 and 0.8654, while the accuracies were 70% and 86.67% for Group 3 and Group 4, respectively. The prediction performance was excellent for WNT and SHH, while that for Group 3 and Group 4 needs further improvements. Machine learning algorithms offer potentials to non-invasively predict molecular subgroups of MB.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207