Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31218287›Full record

ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2019

Machine Learning Versus Logistic Regression Methods for 2-Year Mortality Prognostication in a Small, Heterogeneous Glioma Database.

Sandip S Panesar, Rhett N D'Souza, Fang-Cheng Yeh, Juan C Fernandez-Miranda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pre-screening for non-diagnostic coronary computed tomography angiography.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Sandip S PanesarDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Rhett N D'SouzaDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Fang-Cheng YehDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Juan C Fernandez-MirandaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

Construction of a high-resolution human tractography atlas and its related toolboxR56MH113634 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI YEH, FANG-CHENG · 2018 to 2018
$452k
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) is the application of specialized algorithms to datasets for trend delineation, categorization, or prediction. ML techniques have been traditionally applied to large, highly dimensional databases. Gliomas are a heterogeneous group of primary brain tumors, traditionally graded using histopathologic features. Recently, the World Health Organization proposed a novel grading system for gliomas incorporating molecular characteristics. We aimed to study whether ML could achieve accurate prognostication of 2-year mortality in a small, highly dimensional database of patients with glioma.

methodsWe applied 3 ML techniques (artificial neural networks [ANNs], decision trees [DTs], and support vector machines [SVMs]) and classical logistic regression (LR) to a dataset consisting of 76 patients with glioma of all grades. We compared the effect of applying the algorithms to the raw database versus a database where only statistically significant features were included into the algorithmic inputs (feature selection).

resultsRaw input consisted of 21 variables and achieved performance of accuracy/area (C.I.) under the curve of 70.7%/0.70 (49.9-88.5) for ANN, 68%/0.72 (53.4-90.4) for SVM, 66.7%/0.64 (43.6-85.0) for LR, and 65%/0.70 (51.6-89.5) for DT. Feature selected input consisted of 14 variables and achieved performance of 73.4%/0.75 (62.9-87.9) for ANN, 73.3%/0.74 (62.1-87.4) for SVM, 69.3%/0.73 (60.0-85.8) for LR, and 65.2%/0.63 (49.1-76.9) for DT.

conclusionsWe demonstrate that these techniques can also be applied to small, highly dimensional datasets. Our ML techniques achieved reasonable performance compared with similar studies in the literature. Although local databases may be small versus larger cancer repositories, we demonstrate that ML techniques can still be applied to their analysis; however, traditional statistical methods are of similar benefit.

Indexed as

ANN, Artificial neural networkAUC, Area under the curveCI, Confidence intervalDiagnosisDT, Decision treeGliomasLogistic regressionLR, Logistic regressionMachine learningML, Machine learningNeuro-oncologyNLR, Negative likelihood ratioNPV, Negative predictive valuePLR, Positive likelihood ratioPPV, Positive predictive valuePrognosticationSVM, Support vector machineWHO, World Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID31218287
PMCPMC6581022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.