MRI-Based Radiomics Combined with Deep Learning for Distinguishing IDH-Mutant WHO Grade 4 Astrocytomas from IDH-Wild-Type Glioblastomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the potential of quantitative radiomic data extracted from conventional MR images in discriminating IDH-mutant grade 4 astrocytomas from IDH-wild-type glioblastomas (GBMs). A cohort of 57 treatment-naïve patients with IDH-mutant grade 4 astrocytomas (n = 23) and IDH-wild-type GBMs (n = 34) underwent anatomical imaging on a 3T MR system with standard parameters. Post-contrast T1-weighted and T2-FLAIR images were co-registered. A semi-automatic segmentation approach was used to generate regions of interest (ROIs) from different tissue components of neoplasms. A total of 1050 radiomic features were extracted from each image. The data were split randomly into training and testing sets. A deep learning-based data augmentation method (CTGAN) was implemented to synthesize 200 datasets from the training sets. A total of 18 classifiers were used to distinguish two genotypes of grade 4 astrocytomas. From generated data using 80% training set, the best discriminatory power was obtained from core tumor regions overlaid on post-contrast T1 using the K-best feature selection algorithm and a Gaussian naïve Bayes classifier (AUC = 0.93, accuracy = 0.92, sensitivity = 1, specificity = 0.86, PR_AUC = 0.92). Similarly, high diagnostic performances were obtained from original and generated data using 50% and 30% training sets. Our findings suggest that conventional MR imaging-based radiomic features combined with machine/deep learning methods may be valuable in discriminating IDH-mutant grade 4 astrocytomas from IDH-wild-type GBMs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".