P.115 Diagnostic performance of machine learning based MR algorithm vs conventional MR images for predicting the likelihood of brain tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: MRI forms an imperative part of the diagnostic and treatment protocol for primary brain tumors and metastasis. Though conventional T1W MRI forms the basis for diagnosis at present, it faces several limitations. Machine learning (ML) algorithms require less expertise and provide better diagnostic accuracy. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases along with registries through 1980-2021 was done. Original articles in English evaluating Conventional MRI or ML algorithms. Data was extracted by 2 reviewers and meta-analysis was performed using bivariate regression model. Results: The study protocol was registered under PROSPERO. Twelve studies with 1247 participants were included for systematic analysis and three studies for meta-analysis. ML algorithms had better aggregate sensitivity and specificity (80%, 83.14%) than Conventional MRI (81.84%, 74.78%).The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR for the studies were 0.926 (95% CI, 0.840-0.926), 0.991 (95% CI, 0.955-0.998) and 1446.946 (312.634-6692.646) with AUC=0.904 under HSROC. On subgroup analysis, MRS and Random Forest Model had highest sensitivity and specificity (100%,100%;100%,100%), DSC MRI and Deep Neural Network had highest AUC (0.98,0.986). Conclusions: ML algorithm has superior diagnostic performance and faster diagnostic capability once trained than conventional imaging for brain tumors. It has immense potential to be the standard of care in the future.
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 | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".