MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224222733 · doi:10.1148/radiol.212137

MRI Radiogenomics of Pediatric Medulloblastoma: A Multicenter Study

2022· article· en· W4224222733 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Zhang, Samuel W Wong, Jason N. Wright, Matthias Wagner, Sebastian Toescu, Michelle Han, Lydia Tam, Quan Zhou, Saman Ahmadian, Katie Shpanskaya, Seth Lummus, Hollie Lai, Azam Eghbal, Alireza Radmanesh, Jordan Nemelka, Stephen C. Harward, Michael D. Malinzak, Suzanne Laughlin, Sébastien Perreault, Kristina R. M. Braun, Robert M. Lober, Yoon Jae Cho, Birgit Ertl‐Wagner, Chang Yueh Ho, Kshitij Mankad, Hannes Vogel, Samuel Cheshier, Thomas S. Jacques, Kristian Aquilina, Paul G. Fisher, Michael D. Taylor, Tina Young Poussaint, Nicholas A. Vitanza, Gerald A. Grant, Stefan M. Pfister, Eric M. Thompson, Alok Jaju, Vijay Ramaswamy, Kristen W. Yeom

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCancer Research UKNational Institutes of HealthBrain Tumour CharityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAmerican Brain Tumor Association
KeywordsRadiogenomicsMedicineMedulloblastomaMann–Whitney U testClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceReceiver operating characteristicBinary classificationMachine learningOncologyInternal medicinePathologyRadiologyRadiomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Radiogenomics of pediatric medulloblastoma (MB) offers an opportunity for MB risk stratification, which may aid therapeutic decision making, family counseling, and selection of patient groups suitable for targeted genetic analysis. Purpose To develop machine learning strategies that identify the four clinically significant MB molecular subgroups. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, consecutive pediatric patients with newly diagnosed MB at MRI at 12 international pediatric sites between July 1997 and May 2020 were identified. There were 1800 features extracted from T2- and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted preoperative MRI scans. A two-stage sequential classifier was designed—one that first identifies non-wingless (WNT) and non–sonic hedgehog (SHH) MB and then differentiates therapeutically relevant WNT from SHH. Further, a classifier that distinguishes high-risk group 3 from group 4 MB was developed. An independent, binary subgroup analysis was conducted to uncover radiomics features unique to infantile versus childhood SHH subgroups. The best-performing models from six candidate classifiers were selected, and performance was measured on holdout test sets. CIs were obtained by bootstrapping the test sets for 2000 random samples. Model accuracy score was compared with the no-information rate using the Wald test. Results The study cohort comprised 263 patients (mean age ± SD at diagnosis, 87 months ± 60; 166 boys). A two-stage classifier outperformed a single-stage multiclass classifier. The combined, sequential classifier achieved a microaveraged F1 score of 88% and a binary F1 score of 95% specifically for WNT. A group 3 versus group 4 classifier achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 98%. Of the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative features, texture and first-order intensity features were most contributory across the molecular subgroups. Conclusion An MRI-based machine learning decision path allowed identification of the four clinically relevant molecular pediatric medulloblastoma subgroups. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chaudhary and Bapuraj in this issue.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
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 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

Citations74
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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