MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319083429 · doi:10.3390/cancers15030951

MRI-Based Radiomics Combined with Deep Learning for Distinguishing IDH-Mutant WHO Grade 4 Astrocytomas from IDH-Wild-Type Glioblastomas

2023· article· en· W4319083429 on OpenAlexaff
Seyyed Ali Hosseini, Elahe Hosseini, Ghasem Hajianfar, Isaac Shiri, Stijn Servaes, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Laiz Laura de Godoy, MacLean P. Nasrallah, Donald M. O’Rourke, Suyash Mohan, Sanjeev Chawla

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryRadiomicsArtificial intelligenceFeature selectionText miningGliomaAstrocytomaNaive Bayes classifierMagnetic resonance imagingPattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationNuclear medicineComputer scienceMedicineSupport vector machineRadiologyData miningCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207