MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407091052 · doi:10.1101/2025.01.30.25321339

Segmentation-Free Pretherapeutic Assessment of BRAF-Status in Pediatric Low-Grade Gliomas

2025· preprint· en· W4407091052 on OpenAlexafffund
Kareem Kudus, Matthias Wagner, Min Sheng, Julie Bennett, Anthony Liu, Uri Tabori, Cynthia Hawkins, Birgit Ertl‐Wagner, Farzad Khalvati

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSegmentationMedicineOncologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background BRAF status is crucial for treating pediatric low-grade gliomas (pLGG) and can be assessed non-invasively from segmented tumor regions on MRI using machine learning (ML). However, there are inherent limitations to manual and automated tumor segmentations. Purpose To assess the performance of automated segmentation algorithms and to develop and assess a segmentation-free ML classification pipeline that identifies BRAF status from whole-brain FLAIR MRI sequences. Materials and Methods In this REB-approved retrospective study, molecularly-characterized tumors and whole-brain FLAIR MR images were collected from 455 patients with pLGG treated between 1999 and 2023 at a single tertiary care children’s hospital. We trained and evaluated three medical segmentation models, TransBTS, MedNeXt, and MedicalNet. Next, we developed a model to identify BRAF status from whole-brain FLAIR MRI, without any reliance on manual or automated segmentations. We then implemented a novel pretraining regimen that embedded segmentation knowledge into the whole-brain FLAIR MRI classification model. Finally, we trained and evaluated a baseline model that used manual segmentations as inputs. All ML models were trained and evaluated under a nested-cross validation scheme, and mean performance across all test folds was compared using the corresponding t-test. Results The MedNeXt segmentation model (mean Dice score: 0.555) outperformed both the convolutional neural network (CNN) based MedicalNet (0.516) and the CNN-transformer hybrid TransBTS (0.449) (p <0.05 for all comparisons). The MedNeXt style classification model achieved a one-vs-rest area under the ROC curve of 0.741 using the whole brain FLAIR sequence as an input, without any segmentation knowledge. This was improved to 0.772 through pretraining on the segmentation task, which was not significantly different from the baseline manual segmentation-based model (0.756, p-value: 0.141). Conclusion BRAF status can be assessed non-invasively using ML models based on whole-brain FLAIR sequences. Dependence on inconsistent manual or automated segmentations can be reduced by integrating tumor region information into the model through pretraining.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→