Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31283771›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Radiomics and machine learning of multisequence multiparametric prostate MRI: Towards improved non-invasive prostate cancer characterization.

Jussi Toivonen, Ileana Montoya Perez, Parisa Movahedi, Harri Merisaari, Marko Pesola, Pekka Taimen, Peter J Boström, Jonne Pohjankukka, Aida Kiviniemi, Tapio Pahikkala and 2 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

12 authors.

Jussi ToivonenDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3070-7544
Ileana Montoya PerezDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9744-9204
Parisa MovahediDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Harri MerisaariDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8515-5399
Marko PesolaDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Pekka TaimenInstitute of Biomedicine, University of Turku and Dept. of Pathology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Peter J BoströmDept. of Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Jonne PohjankukkaDept. of Future Technologies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Aida KiviniemiDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tapio PahikkalaDept. of Future Technologies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Hannu J AronenDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Ivan JamborDept. of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop and validate a classifier system for prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) Gleason score (GS) using radiomics and texture features of T2-weighted imaging (T2w), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) acquired using high b values, and T2-mapping (T2).

methodsT2w, DWI (12 b values, 0-2000 s/mm2), and T2 data sets of 62 patients with histologically confirmed PCa were acquired at 3T using surface array coils. The DWI data sets were post-processed using monoexponential and kurtosis models, while T2w was standardized to a common scale. Local statistics and 8 different radiomics/texture descriptors were utilized at different configurations to extract a total of 7105 unique per-tumor features. Regularized logistic regression with implicit feature selection and leave pair out cross validation was used to discriminate tumors with 3+3 vs >3+3 GS.

resultsIn total, 100 PCa lesions were analysed, of those 20 and 80 had GS of 3+3 and >3+3, respectively. The best model performance was obtained by selecting the top 1% features of T2w, ADCm and K with ROC AUC of 0.88 (95% CI of 0.82-0.95). Features from T2 mapping provided little added value. The most useful texture features were based on the gray-level co-occurrence matrix, Gabor transform, and Zernike moments.

conclusionTexture feature analysis of DWI, post-processed using monoexponential and kurtosis models, and T2w demonstrated good classification performance for GS of PCa. In multisequence setting, the optimal radiomics based texture extraction methods and parameters differed between different image types.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31283771
PMCPMC6613688

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.