AI-guided virtual biopsy: Automated differentiation of cerebral gliomas from other benign and malignant MRI findings using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to develop an automated algorithm to noninvasively distinguish gliomas from other intracranial pathologies, preventing misdiagnosis and ensuring accurate analysis before further glioma assessment. Methods: A cohort of 1280 patients with a variety of intracranial pathologies was included. It comprised 218 gliomas (mean age 54.76 ± 13.74 years; 136 males, 82 females), 514 patients with brain metastases (mean age 59.28 ± 12.36 years; 228 males, 286 females), 366 patients with inflammatory lesions (mean age 41.94 ± 14.57 years; 142 males, 224 females), 99 intracerebral hemorrhages (mean age 62.68 ± 16.64 years; 56 males, 43 females), and 83 meningiomas (mean age 63.99 ± 13.31 years; 25 males, 58 females). Radiomic features were extracted from fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), contrast-enhanced, and noncontrast T1-weighted MR sequences. Subcohorts, with 80% for training and 20% for testing, were established for model validation. Machine learning models, primarily XGBoost, were trained to distinguish gliomas from other pathologies. Results: The study demonstrated promising results in distinguishing gliomas from various intracranial pathologies. The best-performing model consistently achieved high area-under-the-curve (AUC) values, indicating strong discriminatory power across multiple distinctions, including gliomas versus metastases (AUC = 0.96), gliomas versus inflammatory lesions (AUC = 1.0), gliomas versus intracerebral hemorrhages (AUC = 0.99), gliomas versus meningiomas (AUC = 0.98). Additionally, across all these entities, gliomas had an AUC of 0.94. Conclusions: The study presents an automated approach that effectively distinguishes gliomas from common intracranial pathologies. This can serve as a quality control upstream to further artificial-intelligence-based genetic analysis of cerebral gliomas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".