Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30280245›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Comparison of radiomics machine-learning classifiers and feature selection for differentiation of sacral chordoma and sacral giant cell tumour based on 3D computed tomography features.

Ping Yin, Ning Mao, Chao Zhao, Jiangfen Wu, Chao Sun, Lei Chen, Nan Hong

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Development and validation of MRI-based radiomics models for predicting recurrence in patients with spine and pelvis chordomas.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ping YinDepartment of Radiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen Nandajie, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, People's Republic of China.
Ning MaoDepartment of Radiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen Nandajie, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, People's Republic of China.
Chao ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen Nandajie, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, People's Republic of China.
Jiangfen WuGE Healthcare, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Chao SunDepartment of Radiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen Nandajie, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, People's Republic of China.
Lei ChenDepartment of Radiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen Nandajie, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, People's Republic of China.
Nan HongDepartment of Radiology, Peking University People's Hospital, 11 Xizhimen Nandajie, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, People's Republic of China. hongnan@bjmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0301-0514
Peking University · CNUnited Imaging Healthcare (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to identify optimal machine-learning methods for preoperative differentiation of sacral chordoma (SC) and sacral giant cell tumour (SGCT) based on 3D non-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and CT-enhanced (CTE) features.

methodsA total of 95 patients were divided into a training set and a validation set. Three best feature selection methods (Relief, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and Random Forest (RF)) and three classification methods, including generalised linear models (GLM), support vector machines (SVM) and RF, were compared for their performance in distinguishing SC and SGCT. The performance of the radiomics model was investigated via area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accuracy (ACC) analysis.

resultsThe selection method LASSO + classifier GLM had the highest AUC of 0.984 and ACC of 0.897 in the validating set, followed by Relief + GLM (AUC = 0.909, ACC = 0.862) and LASSO + SVM (AUC = 0.900, ACC = 0.862) based on CTE features. For CT features, RF + GLM had the highest AUC of 0.889, while LASSO + GLM achieved a high ACC of 0.793 in the validating set. Regardless of the methods, CTE features significantly outperformed those from CT for the differentiation of SC and SGCT (Z

conclusionsOur study demonstrated CTE features performed better than CT features. The selection method LASSO + classifier GLM had the best performance in differentiation of SC and SGCT, which could enhance the application of radiomics methods in sacral tumours. KEY POINTS: • Sacral chordoma and sacral giant cell tumour are the two most common primary tumours of the sacrum with many common clinical and imaging characteristics. • A radiomics model helps clinicians to identify the histology of a sacral tumour. • CTE features should be preferred.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalMachine LearningTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultChordomaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleGiant Cell TumorsHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSacrumAlgorithmsBone neoplasmsMachine learningSacrum

Identifiers

PMID30280245
OpenAlexW2894577841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.