Regional and Volumetric Parameters for Diffusion-Weighted WHO Grade II and III Glioma Genotyping: A Method Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies consistently report lower ADC values in isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) wild-type gliomas than in IDH mutant tumors, but their methods and thresholds vary. This research aimed to compare volumetric and regional ADC measurement techniques for glioma genotyping, with a focus on IDH status prediction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve World Health Organization grade II and III gliomas were analyzed by 3 neuroradiologist readers blinded to tissue results. ADC minimum and mean ROIs were defined in tumor and in normal-appearing white matter to calculate normalized values. T2-weighted tumor VOIs were registered to ADC maps with histogram parameters (mean, 2nd and 5th percentiles) extracted. Nonparametric testing (eta2 and ANOVA) was performed to identify associations between ADC metrics and glioma genotypes. Logistic regression was used to probe the ability of VOI and ROI metrics to predict IDH status. RESULTS: The study included 283 patients with 79 IDH wild-type and 204 IDH mutant gliomas. Across the study population, IDH status was most accurately predicted by ROI mean normalized ADC and VOI mean normalized ADC, with areas under the curve of 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. The results for ROI-based genotyping of nonenhancing and solid-patchy enhancing gliomas were comparable with volumetric parameters (area under the curve = 0.81–0.84). In rim-enhancing, centrally necrotic tumors (n = 23), only volumetric measurements were predictive (0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Regional normalized mean ADC measurements are noninferior to volumetric segmentation for defining solid glioma IDH status. Partially necrotic, rim-enhancing tumors are unsuitable for ROI assessment and may benefit from volumetric ADC quantification.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".