Does Whole Brain Radiomics on Multimodal Neuroimaging Make Sense in Neuro-Oncology? A Proof of Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employing a whole-brain (WB) mask as a region of interest for extracting radiomic features is a feasible, albeit less common, approach in neuro-oncology research. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between WB radiomic features, derived from various neuroimaging modalities in patients with gliomas, and some key baseline characteristics of patients and tumors such as sex, histological tumor type, WHO Grade (2021), IDH1 mutation status, necrosis lesions, contrast enhancement, T/N peak value and metabolic tumor volume. Forty-one patients (average age 50 ± 15 years, 21 females and 20 males) with supratentorial glial tumors were enrolled in this study. A total of 38,720 radiomic features were extracted. Cluster analysis revealed that whole-brain images of biologically different tumors could be distinguished to a certain extent based on their imaging biomarkers. Machine learning capabilities to detect image properties like contrast-enhanced or necrotic zones validated radiomic features in objectifying image semantics. Furthermore, the predictive capability of imaging biomarkers in determining tumor histology, grade and mutation type underscores their diagnostic potential. Whole-brain radiomics using multimodal neuroimaging data appeared to be informative in neuro-oncology, making research in this area well justified.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".