Clinician Perspectives of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Based 3D Volumetric Analysis Tool for Neurofibromatosis Type 2–Related Schwannomatosis: Qualitative Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Accurate monitoring of tumor progression is crucial for optimizing outcomes in neurofibromatosis type 2-related schwannomatosis. Standard 2D linear analysis on magnetic resonance imaging is less accurate than 3D volumetric analysis, but since 3D volumetric analysis is time-consuming, it is not widely used. To shorten the time required for 3D volumetric analysis, our lab has been developing an automated artificial intelligence-driven 3D volumetric tool. Objective: The objective of the study was to survey and interview clinicians treating neurofibromatosis type 2-related schwannomatosis to understand their views on current 2D analysis and to gather insights for the design of an artificial intelligence-driven 3D volumetric analysis tool. Methods: Interviews examined for the following themes: (1) shortcomings of the currently used linear analysis, (2) utility of 3D visualizations, (3) features of an interactive 3D modeling software, and (4) lack of a gold standard to assess the accuracy of 3D volumetric analysis. A Likert scale questionnaire was used to survey clinicians' levels of agreement with 25 statements related to 2D and 3D tumor analyses. Results: A total of 14 clinicians completed a survey, and 12 clinicians were interviewed. Specialties ranged across neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, oncology, and pediatrics. Overall, clinicians expressed concerns with current linear techniques, with clinicians agreeing that linear measurements can be variable with the possibility of two different clinicians calculating 2 different tumor sizes (mean 4.64, SD 0.49) and that volumetric measurements would be more helpful for determining clearer thresholds of tumor growth (mean 4.50, SD 0.52). For statements discussing the capabilities of a 3D volumetric analysis and visualization software, clinicians expressed strong interest in being able to visualize tumors with respect to critical brain structures (mean 4.36, SD 0.74) and in forecasting tumor growth (mean 4.77, SD 0.44). Conclusions: Clinicians were overall in favor of the adoption of 3D volumetric analysis techniques for measuring vestibular schwannoma tumors but expressed concerns regarding the novelty and inexperience surrounding these techniques. However, clinicians felt that the ability to visualize tumors with reference to critical structures, to overlay structures, to interact with 3D models, and to visualize areas of slow versus rapid growth in 3D would be valuable contributions to clinical practice. Overall, clinicians provided valuable insights for designing a 3D volumetric analysis tool for vestibular schwannoma tumor growth. These findings may also apply to other central nervous system tumors, offering broader utility in tumor growth assessments.
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 | 0.035 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".