ArticleJournal of neuroimaging in psychiatry & neurology2016
Assessing the Effects of Software Platforms on Volumetric Segmentation of Glioblastoma.
Article in Journal of neuroimaging in psychiatry & neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Artificial intelligence in oncological radiology : A (p)review].Der Radiologe · 2021Review
- Imaging-Based Subtypes of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Exhibit Differential Growth and Metabolic Patterns in the Pre-Diagnostic Period: Implications for Early Detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiological assessments of biologically relevant regions in glioblastoma have been associated with genotypic characteristics, implying a potential role in personalized medicine. Here, we assess the reproducibility and association with survival of two volumetric segmentation platforms and explore how methodology could impact subsequent interpretation and analysis.
methodsPost-contrast T1- and T2-weighted FLAIR MR images of 67 TCGA patients were segmented into five distinct compartments (necrosis, contrast-enhancement, FLAIR, post contrast abnormal, and total abnormal tumor volumes) by two quantitative image segmentation platforms - 3D Slicer and a method based on Velocity AI and FSL. We investigated the internal consistency of each platform by correlation statistics, association with survival, and concordance with consensus neuroradiologist ratings using ordinal logistic regression.
resultsWe found high correlations between the two platforms for FLAIR, post contrast abnormal, and total abnormal tumor volumes (spearman's r(67) = 0.952, 0.959, and 0.969 respectively). Only modest agreement was observed for necrosis and contrast-enhancement volumes (r(67) = 0.693 and 0.773 respectively), likely arising from differences in manual and automated segmentation methods of these regions by 3D Slicer and Velocity AI/FSL, respectively. Survival analysis based on AUC revealed significant predictive power of both platforms for the following volumes: contrast-enhancement, post contrast abnormal, and total abnormal tumor volumes. Finally, ordinal logistic regression demonstrated correspondence to manual ratings for several features.
conclusionTumor volume measurements from both volumetric platforms produced highly concordant and reproducible estimates across platforms for general features. As automated or semi-automated volumetric measurements replace manual linear or area measurements, it will become increasingly important to keep in mind that measurement differences between segmentation platforms for more detailed features could influence downstream survival or radio genomic analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.