Classification of glioma grade and Ki-67 level prediction in MRI data: A SHAP-driven interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on artificial intelligence-driven classification of glioma and Ki-67 leveling using T2w-FLAIR MRI, exploring the association of Ki-67 biomarkers with deep learning (DL) features through explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). This IRB-approved study included 101 patients with glioma brain tumor acquired MR images with the T2W-FLAIR sequence. We extracted DL bottleneck features using ResNet50 from glioma MR images. Principal component analysis (PCA) was deployed for dimensionality reduction. XAI was used to identify potential features. The XGBosst classified the histologic grades of the glioma and the level of Ki-67. We integrated potential DL features with patient demographics (age and sex) and Ki-67 biomarkers, utilizing SHAP to determine the model's essential features and interactions. Glioma grade classification and Ki-67 level predictions achieved overall accuracies of 0.94 and 0.91, respectively. It achieved precision scores of 0.92, 0.94, and 0.96 for glioma grades 2, 3, and 4, and 0.88, 0.94, and 0.97 for Ki-67 levels (low: 5%≤Ki-67<10%, moderate: 10%≤Ki-67≤20, and high: Ki-67>20%). Corresponding F1-scores were 0.95, 0.88, and 0.96 for glioma grades and 0.92, 0.93, and 0.87 for Ki-67 levels. SHAP analysis further highlighted a strong association between bottleneck DL features and Ki-67 biomarkers, demonstrating their potential to differentiate glioma grades and Ki-67 levels while offering valuable insights into glioma aggressiveness. This study demonstrates the precise classification of glioma grades and the prediction of Ki-67 levels to underscore the potential of AI-driven MRI analysis to enhance clinical decision-making in glioma management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".