ArticleScientific reports2019
Prognostic models based on imaging findings in glioblastoma: Human versus Machine.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Survival prediction of glioblastoma patients using machine learning and deep learning: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Survival prediction of glioblastoma patients-are we there yet? A systematic review of prognostic modeling for glioblastoma and its clinical potential.Neurosurgical review · 2021Pooled it
- Biomaterial-basedCancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2023Review
- Current Evidence, Limitations and Future Challenges of Survival Prediction for Glioblastoma Based on Advanced Noninvasive Methods: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of motor status in glioma patients using diffusion MRI metrics along the corticospinal tract.Brain communications · 2022Article
- Survival prediction in glioblastoma on post-contrast magnetic resonance imaging using filtration based first-order texture analysis: Comparison of multiple machine learning models.The neuroradiology journal · 2021Article
- A mesoscopic simulator to uncover heterogeneity and evolutionary dynamics in tumors.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- A decade of radiomics research: are images really data or just patterns in the noise?European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.