Standardized evaluation of the extent of resection in glioblastoma with automated early post-operative segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard treatment of patients with glioblastoma includes surgical resection of the tumor. The extent of resection (EOR) achieved during surgery significantly impacts prognosis and is used to stratify patients in clinical trials. In this study, we developed a U-Net-based deep-learning model to segment contrast-enhancing tumor on post-operative MRI exams taken within 72 h of resection surgery and used these segmentations to classify the EOR as either maximal or submaximal. The model was trained on 122 multiparametric MRI scans from our institution and achieved a mean Dice score of 0.52 ± 0.03 on an external dataset ( n = 248), a performance on par with the interrater agreement between expert annotators as reported in literature. We obtained an EOR classification precision/recall of 0.72/0.78 on the internal test dataset ( n = 462) and 0.90/0.87 on the external dataset. Furthermore, Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare the overall survival between patients with maximal and submaximal resection in the internal test dataset, as determined by either clinicians or the model. There was no significant difference between the survival predictions using the model's and clinical EOR classification. We find that the proposed segmentation model is capable of reliably classifying the EOR of glioblastoma tumors on early post-operative MRI scans. Moreover, we show that stratification of patients based on the model's predictions offers at least the same prognostic value as when done by clinicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".