MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403637666 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics14212354

Radiomic Features as Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Models in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4403637666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dewa Putu Wisnu Wardhana, Sri Maliawan, Tjokorda Gde Bagus Mahadewa, Rohadi Muhammad Rosyidi, Sinta Wiranata

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlioblastomaMeta-analysisArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma, the predominant primary tumor among all central nervous systems, accounts for around 80% of cases. Prognosis in neuro-oncology involves assessing the disease's progression in different individuals, considering the time between the initial pathological diagnosis and the time until the disease worsens. A noninvasive therapeutic approach called radiomic features (RFs), which involves the application of artificial intelligence in MRI, has been developed to address this issue. This study aims to systematically gather evidence and evaluate the prognosis significance of radiomics in glioblastoma using RFs. METHODS: We conducted an extensive search across the PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant original studies examining the use of RFs to evaluate the prognosis of patients with glioblastoma. This thorough search was completed on 25 July 2024. Our search terms included glioblastoma, MRI, magnetic resonance imaging, radiomics, and survival or prognosis. We included only English-language studies involving human subjects, excluding case reports, case series, and review studies. The studies were classified into two quality categories: those rated 4-6 were considered moderate-, whereas those rated 7-9 were high-quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for OS and PFS were combined using random effects models. RESULTS: In total, 253 studies were found in the initial search across the five databases. After screening the articles, 40 were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, and we included only 14 studies. All twelve OS and eight PFS trials were considered, involving 1.639 and 747 patients, respectively. The random effects model was used to calculate the pooled HRs for OS and PFS. The HR for OS was 3.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.80-7.17), while the HR for PFS was 4.20 (95% CI, 1.02-17.32). CONCLUSIONS: An RF-AI-based approach offers prognostic significance for OS and PFS in patients with glioblastoma.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207