Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30979965›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Prognostic models based on imaging findings in glioblastoma: Human versus Machine.

David Molina-García, Luis Vera-Ramírez, Julián Pérez-Beteta, Estanislao Arana, Víctor M Pérez-García

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Biomaterial-basedCancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

David Molina-GarcíaMathematics Department, Mathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain. david.molina@uclm.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6104-3894
Luis Vera-RamírezHelmholtz-Zentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Julián Pérez-BetetaMathematics Department, Mathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0317-6215
Estanislao AranaRadiology Department, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1884-7854
Víctor M Pérez-GarcíaMathematics Department, Mathematical Oncology Laboratory (MôLAB), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6575-495X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many studies have built machine-learning (ML)-based prognostic models for glioblastoma (GBM) based on radiological features. We wished to compare the predictive performance of these methods to human knowledge-based approaches. 404 GBM patients were included (311 discovery and 93 validation). 16 morphological and 28 textural descriptors were obtained from pretreatment volumetric postcontrast T1-weighted magnetic resonance images. Different prognostic ML methods were developed. An optimized linear prognostic model (OLPM) was also built using the four significant non-correlated parameters with individual prognosis value. OLPM achieved high prognostic value (validation c-index = 0.817) and outperformed ML models based on either the same parameter set or on the full set of 44 attributes considered. Neural networks with cross-validation-optimized attribute selection achieved comparable results (validation c-index = 0.825). ML models using only the four outstanding parameters obtained better results than their counterparts based on all the attributes, which presented overfitting. In conclusion, OLPM and ML methods studied here provided the most accurate survival predictors for glioblastoma to date, due to a combination of the strength of the methodology, the quality and volume of the data used and the careful attribute selection. The ML methods studied suffered overfitting and lost prognostic value when the number of parameters was increased.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleGlioblastomaHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalKaplan-Meier EstimateLinear ModelsMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID30979965
PMCPMC6461644

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.