Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31317002›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019

Machine learning for semi-automated classification of glioblastoma, brain metastasis and central nervous system lymphoma using magnetic resonance advanced imaging.

Nathaniel C Swinburne, Javin Schefflein, Yu Sakai, Eric Karl Oermann, Joseph J Titano, Iris Chen, Sayedhedayatollah Tadayon, Amit Aggarwal, Amish Doshi, Kambiz Nael

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluating Autoencoders for Dimensionality Reduction of MRI-derived Radiomics and Classification of Malignant Brain Tumors.Scientific and statistical database management : International Conference, SSDBM ... : proceedings. International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Nathaniel C SwinburneDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Javin ScheffleinDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Yu SakaiIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Eric Karl OermannDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Joseph J TitanoDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Iris ChenIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Sayedhedayatollah TadayonIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Amit AggarwalDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Amish DoshiDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Kambiz NaelDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferentiating glioblastoma, brain metastasis, and central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL) on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can present a diagnostic dilemma due to the potential for overlapping imaging features. We investigate whether machine learning evaluation of multimodal MRI can reliably differentiate these entities.

methodsPreoperative brain MRI including diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE), and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion in patients with glioblastoma, lymphoma, or metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. Perfusion maps (rCBV, rCBF), permeability maps (K-trans, Kep, Vp, Ve), ADC, T1C+ and T2/FLAIR images were coregistered and two separate volumes of interest (VOIs) were obtained from the enhancing tumor and non-enhancing T2 hyperintense (NET2) regions. The tumor volumes obtained from these VOIs were utilized for supervised training of support vector classifier (SVC) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) models. Validation of the trained models was performed on unlabeled cases using the leave-one-subject-out method. Head-to-head and multiclass models were created. Accuracies of the multiclass models were compared against two human interpreters reviewing conventional and diffusion-weighted MR images.

resultsTwenty-six patients enrolled with histopathologically-proven glioblastoma (n=9), metastasis (n=9), and CNS lymphoma (n=8) were included. The trained multiclass ML models discriminated the three pathologic classes with a maximum accuracy of 69.2% accuracy (18 out of 26; kappa 0.540, P=0.01) using an MLP trained with the VpNET2 tumor volumes. Human readers achieved 65.4% (17 out of 26) and 80.8% (21 out of 26) accuracies, respectively. Using the MLP VpNET2 model as a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) for cases in which the human reviewers disagreed with each other on the diagnosis resulted in correct diagnoses in 5 (19.2%) additional cases.

conclusionsOur trained multiclass MLP using VpNET2 can differentiate glioblastoma, brain metastasis, and CNS lymphoma with modest diagnostic accuracy and provides approximately 19% increase in diagnostic yield when added to routine human interpretation.

Indexed as

Brain tumorclassificationmachine learningmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)neuroradiology

Identifiers

PMID31317002
PMCPMC6603356

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.