Towards machine learning-based quantitative hyperspectral image guidance for brain tumor resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complete resection of malignant gliomas is hampered by the difficulty in distinguishing tumor cells at the infiltration zone. Fluorescence guidance with 5-ALA assists in reaching this goal. Using hyperspectral imaging, previous work characterized five fluorophores' emission spectra in most human brain tumors. METHODS: In this paper, the effectiveness of these five spectra was explored for different tumor and tissue classification tasks in 184 patients (891 hyperspectral measurements) 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). Four machine-learning models were trained to classify tumor type, grade, glioma margins, and IDH mutation. RESULTS: Using random forests and multilayer perceptrons, the classifiers achieve average test accuracies of 84-87%, 96.1%, 86%, and 91% respectively. All five fluorophore abundances vary between tumor margin types and tumor grades (p < 0.01). For tissue type, at least four of the five fluorophore abundances are significantly different (p < 0.01) between all classes. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the fluorophores' differing abundances in different tissue classes and the value of the five fluorophores 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".