Radiomic signatures of posterior fossa ependymoma: Molecular subgroups and risk profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk profile for posterior fossa ependymoma (EP) depends on surgical and molecular status [Group A (PFA) versus Group B (PFB)]. While subtotal tumor resection is known to confer worse prognosis, MRI-based EP risk-profiling is unexplored. We aimed to apply machine learning strategies to link MRI-based biomarkers of high-risk EP and also to distinguish PFA from PFB. METHODS: We extracted 1800 quantitative features from presurgical T2-weighted (T2-MRI) and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted (T1-MRI) imaging of 157 EP patients. We implemented nested cross-validation to identify features for risk score calculations and apply a Cox model for survival analysis. We conducted additional feature selection for PFA versus PFB and examined performance across three candidate classifiers. RESULTS: For all EP patients with GTR, we identified four T2-MRI-based features and stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups, with 5-year overall survival rates of 62% and 100%, respectively (P < .0001). Among presumed PFA patients with GTR, four T1-MRI and five T2-MRI features predicted divergence of high- and low-risk groups, with 5-year overall survival rates of 62.7% and 96.7%, respectively (P = .002). T1-MRI-based features showed the best performance distinguishing PFA from PFB with an AUC of 0.86. CONCLUSIONS: We present machine learning strategies to identify MRI phenotypes that distinguish PFA from PFB, as well as high- and low-risk PFA. We also describe quantitative image predictors of aggressive EP tumors that might assist risk-profiling after surgery. Future studies could examine translating radiomics as an adjunct to EP risk assessment when considering therapy strategies or trial candidacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".