MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111168043 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.649

NIMG-36. AUTOMATIC STRATIFICATION OF ENHANCING AND NON-ENHANCING GLIOMAS INTO GENETIC SUBTYPES USING DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS AND DIFFUSION-WEIGHTED IMAGING

2020· article· en· W3111168043 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Cluceru, Paula Alcaide‐Leon, Yannet Interian, Valentina Pedoia, Joanna J. Phillips, Devika Nair, Tracy Luks, Javier Villanueva‐Meyer, Janine Lupo

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryNuclear medicineMedicineWild typeMagnetic resonance imagingMutantRadiologyBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Current WHO guidelines emphasize classification of diffuse gliomas by genetic alterations into three subgroups: 1) IDH-wildtype; 2) IDH-mutant, 1p/19q-codeleted; and 3) IDH-mutant, 1p/19q-non-codeleted. Non-invasive genetic characterization can benefit patients with inoperable lesions or who are administered molecularly-targeted therapy before surgery. Prior studies that use anatomical images and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to distinguish either IDH-mutant from IDH-wildtype tumors, or 1p/19q-codeleted from non-codeleted tumors have resulted in misclassification of nonenhancing IDH-wildtype and enhancing IDH-mutant tumors. This study investigated the benefit of a priori separation of enhancing from nonenhancing lesions and the inclusion of ADC maps from diffusion MRI to genetic subgroup classification. METHODS 3D T2-weighted, T2-FLAIR, and post-contrast T1-weighted images were acquired preoperatively from 254 patients with newly-diagnosed gliomas. IDH1R132H mutations[VJ1] [CJ2], 1p19q-codeletions, ATRX alterations, and p53 mutations were assessed from the resected tissue to determine subtype stratification: IDH-wildtype (n=95), IDH-mutant, 1p/19q-codeleted (n=62), and IDH-mutant, non-codeleted (n=97). 3-channel input images were constructed for each patient using T2-FLAIR, T1-post-contrast, and either T2-weighted or ADC images. Three VGG-16 CNNs pre-trained on ImageNet were re-trained for: 1) lesions without enhancement, 2) enhancing lesions, and 3) all lesions together[VJ3]. RESULTS A network trained on only enhancing lesions predicted the IDH-wildtype subtype with the highest class accuracy (ADC 94%, T2-weighted 100%) compared to using all lesions combined (ADC 90%, T2-weighted 90%). Models trained using non-enhancing lesions and ADC yielded the highest accuracy classifying 1p/19q-codeleted/non-codeleted subgroups (87%/90% for the non-enhancing network vs 83%/81% for combined network). CONCLUSIONS Our results support a strategy that first considers whether a lesion is enhancing when predicting molecular subgroup and includes ADC if the lesion is non-enhancing. Analysis is underway to test this model framework on independent TCIA data.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207