Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22322603›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2012

Survival analysis of patients with high-grade gliomas based on data mining of imaging variables.

E I Zacharaki, N Morita, P Bhatt, D M O'Rourke, E R Melhem, C Davatzikos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Predicting primary outcomes of brain tumor patients with advanced neuroimaging MRI measures.Interdisciplinary neurosurgery : Advanced techniques and case management · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Whole-Tumor Histogram and Texture Analyses of DTI for Evaluation ofAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Outcome Prediction for Patient with High-Grade Gliomas from Brain Functional and Structural Networks.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

E I ZacharakiSection of Biomedical Image Analysis, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA. Eva.Zacharaki@uphs.upenn.edu
N Morita
P Bhatt
D M O'Rourke
E R Melhem
C Davatzikos

Funding

Statistical atlases of brain tumor MRI:do imaging phenotypes predict progression?R01NS042645 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVATZIKOS, CHRISTOS · 2002 to 2024
$8.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS042645NINDS NIH HHS R01NS042645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe prediction of prognosis in HGGs is poor in the majority of patients. Our aim was to test whether multivariate prediction models constructed by machine-learning methods provide a more accurate predictor of prognosis in HGGs than histopathologic classification. The prediction of survival was based on DTI and rCBV measurements as an adjunct to conventional imaging. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe relationship of survival to 55 variables, including clinical parameters (age, sex), categoric or continuous tumor descriptors (eg, tumor location, extent of resection, multifocality, edema), and imaging characteristics in ROIs, was analyzed in a multivariate fashion by using data-mining techniques. A variable selection method was applied to identify the overall most important variables. The analysis was performed on 74 HGGs (18 anaplastic gliomas WHO grades III/IV and 56 GBMs or gliosarcomas WHO grades IV/IV).

resultsFive variables were identified as the most significant, including the extent of resection, mass effect, volume of enhancing tumor, maximum B0 intensity, and mean trace intensity in the nonenhancing/edematous region. These variables were used to construct a prediction model based on a J48 classification tree. The average classification accuracy, assessed by cross-validation, was 85.1%. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the constructed prediction model classified malignant gliomas in a manner that better correlates with clinical outcome than standard histopathology.

conclusionsPrediction models based on data-mining algorithms can provide a more accurate predictor of prognosis in malignant gliomas than histopathologic classification alone.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData MiningDecision Support Systems, ClinicalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArtificial IntelligenceBrain NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualFemaleGliomaHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22322603
PMCPMC4373623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.