MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388590067 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad179.0613

INNV-24. MACHINE LEARNING-BASED SPECTROSCOPIC TISSUE DIFFERENTIATION IN FLUORESCENCE-GUIDED NEUROSURGERY

2023· article· en· W4388590067 on OpenAlexaff
David Black, Declan Byrne, Anna Walke, Sidong Liu, Antonio Di Ieva, Walter Stummer, Septimiu E. Salcudean, Eric Suero Molina

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePrincipal component analysisComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Hyperspectral imagingDimensionality reductionRandom forestFluorophoreGliomaFluorescencePhysicsBiologyOpticsCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Maximal resection of malignant gliomas is hindered by difficulty in distinguishing tumor margins. Fluorescence-guided resection with 5-ALA assists in reaching this goal. Previously, we characterized five fluorophore emissions that accurately represent any spectrum measured from human brain tumor biopsies with a wide-field hyperspectral device. In this study, the effectiveness of these five spectra was explored for different tumor classification tasks in 891 hyperspectral widefield measurements of 184 patients harboring low- (n=30) and high-grade gliomas (n=115), non-glial primary brain tumors (n=19), radiation necrosis (n=2), miscellaneous (n=10) and metastases (n=8), which corresponds to up to 15000 spectra for a given test. The statistical differences in fluorophore abundances between classes were determined and visualized using dimensionality reduction techniques, including principal component analysis (PCA) and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE). Three machine-learning models were trained to classify tumor type (12 classes), grade (3 classes), and glioma margins (3 classes). Five algorithms were tested with varying hyperparameters for each classification task. We explored whether PCA projection onto five different axes than fluorophore abundances can provide more information for visualization and classification. The abundances of the five a priori fluorophore spectra matched or outperformed the five optimal PCA components for all classification tasks. These five axes capture 96-99% of the variance in the dataset. Using random forests and multilayer perceptrons, the classifiers achieved average test accuracies of 74-82%, 79%, and 81%, respectively. All five fluorophore abundances varied between tumor margin type as well as between grades (p < 0.01). For tissue type, at least four of five fluorophore abundances were found to be significantly different (p < 0.01) between all classes. These results demonstrate the differing contribution of fluorophores in different tissue classes tissue, as well as the five fluorophores value as potential optical biomarkers, opening new opportunities for intraoperative classification systems in fluorescence-guided neurosurgery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207