Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28450707›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Post-Surgery Glioma Growth Modeling from Magnetic Resonance Images for Patients with Treatment.

Ahmed Elazab, Hongmin Bai, Yousry M Abdulazeem, Talaat Abdelhamid, Sijie Zhou, Kelvin K L Wong, Qingmao Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Ahmed ElazabResearch Laboratory for Medical Imaging and Digital Surgery, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6110-7886
Hongmin BaiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Guangzhou General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Guangzhou, China.
Yousry M AbdulazeemDepartment of Computer Engineering, Misr Higher Institute for Engineering and Technology, Mansoura City, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1721-481X
Talaat AbdelhamidDepartment of Physics and Mathematical Engineering, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufiya University, Al Minufiyah, Egypt.
Sijie ZhouDepartment of Neurosurgery, Guangzhou General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Guangzhou, China.
Kelvin K L WongSchool of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia. Kelvin.Wong@westernsydney.edu.au.
Qingmao HuResearch Laboratory for Medical Imaging and Digital Surgery, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China. qm.hu@siat.ac.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reaction diffusion is the most common growth modelling methodology due to its simplicity and consistency with the biological tumor growth process. However, current extensions of the reaction diffusion model lack one or more of the following: efficient inclusion of treatments' effects, taking into account the viscoelasticity of brain tissues, and guaranteed stability of the numerical solution. We propose a new model to overcome the aforementioned drawbacks. Guided by directional information derived from diffusion tensor imaging, our model relates tissue heterogeneity with the absorption of the chemotherapy, adopts the linear-quadratic term to simulate the radiotherapy effect, employs Maxwell-Weichert model to incorporate brain viscoelasticity, and ensures the stability of the numerical solution. The performance is verified through experiments on synthetic and real MR images. Experiments on 9 MR datasets of patients with low grade gliomas undergoing surgery with different treatment regimens are carried out and validated using Jaccard score and Dice coefficient. The growth simulation accuracies of the proposed model are in ranges of [0.673 0.822] and [0.805 0.902] for Jaccard scores and Dice coefficients, respectively. The accuracies decrease up to 4% and 2.4% when ignoring treatment effects and the tensor information, while brain viscoelasticity has no significant impact on the accuracies.

Indexed as

BiometryMagnetic Resonance ImagingComputer SimulationGliomaHumansModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID28450707
PMCPMC5430870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.