Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32006166›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Differentiation of supratentorial single brain metastasis and glioblastoma by using peri-enhancing oedema region-derived radiomic features and multiple classifiers.

Fei Dong, Qian Li, Biao Jiang, Xiuliang Zhu, Qiang Zeng, Peiyu Huang, Shujun Chen, Minming Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Radiomics in glioma: emerging trends and challenges.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Synchronous glioblastoma and brain metastases: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors.

Fei DongDepartment of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China.
Qian LiDepartment of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China. liqianivy@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6581-7199
Biao JiangDepartment of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China.
Xiuliang ZhuDepartment of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China.
Qiang ZengDepartment of Neurosurgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China.
Peiyu HuangDepartment of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China.
Shujun ChenDepartment of Radiology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, 310022, China.
Minming ZhangDepartment of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China. zhangminming@zju.edu.cn.

Funding

Medicine and Health Scientific and Technological Program of the Health Department of Zhejiang province, China 2017KY374the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81801654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo differentiate supratentorial single brain metastasis (MET) from glioblastoma (GBM) by using radiomic features derived from the peri-enhancing oedema region and multiple classifiers.

methodsOne hundred and twenty single brain METs and GBMs were retrospectively reviewed and then randomly divided into a training data set (70%) and validation data set (30%). Quantitative radiomic features of each case were extracted from the peri-enhancing oedema region of conventional MR images. After feature selection, five classifiers were built. Additionally, the combined use of the classifiers was studied. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were used to evaluate the classification performance.

resultsA total of 321 features were extracted, and 3 features were selected for each case. The 5 classifiers showed an accuracy of 0.70 to 0.76, sensitivity of 0.57 to 0.98, and specificity of 0.43 to 0.93 for the training data set, with an accuracy of 0.56 to 0.64, sensitivity of 0.39 to 0.78, and specificity of 0.50 to 0.89 for the validation data set. When combining the classifiers, the classification performance differed according to the combined mode and the agreement pattern of classifiers, and the greatest benefit was obtained when all the classifiers reached agreement using the same weight and simple majority vote method.

conclusionsThree features derived from the peri-enhancing oedema region had moderate value in differentiating supratentorial single brain MET from GBM with five single classifiers. Combined use of classifiers, like multi-disciplinary team (MDT) consultation, could confer extra benefits, especially for those cases when all classifiers reach agreement. KEY POINTS: • Radiomics provides a way to differentiate single brain MET between GBM by using conventional MR images. • The results of classifiers or algorithms themselves are also data, the transformation of the primary data. • Like MDT consultation, the combined use of multiple classifiers may confer extra benefits.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsBrain EdemaBrain NeoplasmsData AccuracyDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleGlioblastomaHumansImage EnhancementLung NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedDiagnosisGlioblastomaMachine learningNeoplasm metastasisRadiomics

Identifiers

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.