Meningioma grading via diagnostic imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Meningioma is the most common intracranial tumor, graded on pathology using WHO criteria to predict tumor course and treatment. However, pathological grading via biopsy may not be possible in cases with poor surgical access due to tumor location. Therefore, our systematic review aims to evaluate whether diagnostic imaging features can differentiate high grade (HG) from low grade (LG) meningiomas as an alternative to pathological grading. METHODS: Three databases were searched for primary studies that either use routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) to assess pathologically WHO-graded meningiomas. Two investigators independently screened and extracted data from included studies. RESULTS: 24 studies met our inclusion criteria with 12 significant (p < 0.05) CT and MRI features identified for differentiating HG from LG meningiomas. Cystic changes in the tumor had the highest specificity (93.4%) and irregular tumor-brain interface had the highest positive predictive value (65.0%). Mass effect had the highest sensitivity (81.0%) and negative predictive value (90.7%) of all imaging features. Imaging feature with the highest accuracy for identifying HG disease was irregular tumor-brain interface (79.7%). Irregular tumor-brain interface and heterogenous tumor enhancement had the highest AUC values of 0.788 and 0.703, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review highlight imaging features that can help differentiate HG from LG meningiomas.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".