MRI Radiomics to Differentiate Between Low Grade Glioma and Glioblastoma Peritumoral Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The peritumoral region (PTR) of glioblastoma (GBM) appears as a T2W-hyperintensity and is characterized by microscopic tumor and edema. Infiltrative low grade glioma (LGG) comprises tumor cells that seem similar to GBM PTR on MRI. The work here explored if a radiomics-based approach can distinguish between LGG and GBM PTR, which can have future implications on existing treatment paradigms. Methods Patients with GBM and LGG imaged using a 1.5 T MRI were included in the study. Image data from cases of GBM PTR, and LGG were manually segmented guided by T2W hyperintensity. A set of 91 first-order and texture features were determined from each of T1W-contrast, and T2W-FLAIR, diffusion-weighted imaging sequences. Applying filtration techniques, a total of 3822 features were obtained. Different feature reduction techniques were employed, and a subsequent model was constructed using four machine learning classifiers. Leave-one-out cross-validation was used to assess classifier performance. Results The analysis included 42 GBM and 36 LGG. The best performance was obtained using AdaBoost classifier using all the features with a sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area of curve (AUC) of 91%, 86%, 89%, and 0.96, respectively. Amongst the feature selection techniques, the recursive feature elimination technique had the best results, with an AUC ranging from 0.87 to 0.92. Evaluation with the F-test resulted in the most consistent feature selection with 3 T1W-contrast texture features chosen in over 90% of instances. Conclusions Quantitative analysis of conventional MRI sequences can effectively demarcate GBM PTR from LGG, which is otherwise indistinguishable on visual estimation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".