Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32193643›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2020

Diagnostic accuracy and potential covariates for machine learning to identify IDH mutations in glioma patients: evidence from a meta-analysis.

Jing Zhao, Yingqian Huang, Yukun Song, Dingxiang Xie, Manshi Hu, Haishan Qiu, Jianping Chu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Accuracy of Radiomics in PredictingRadiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Artificial intelligence in neuro-oncology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Imaging diagnosis and treatment selection for brain tumors in the era of molecular therapeutics.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. MRI biomarkers in neuro-oncology.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Jing Zhao *Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58, The Second Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
Yingqian Huang *Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58, The Second Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
Yukun SongDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Dingxiang XieDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58, The Second Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
Manshi HuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58, The Second Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
Haishan QiuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58, The Second Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
Jianping ChuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 58, The Second Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China. truechu@hotmail.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2017A030313676)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning (ML) in predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations in patients with glioma and to identify potential covariates that could influence the diagnostic performance of ML.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to 1 August 2019 was conducted to collect all the articles investigating the diagnostic performance of ML for prediction of IDH mutation in glioma. The search strategy combined synonyms for 'machine learning', 'glioma', and 'IDH'. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was obtained.

resultsNine original articles assessing a total of 996 patients with glioma were included. Among these studies, five divided the participants into training and validation sets, while the remaining four studies only had a training set. The AUC of ML for predicting IDH mutation in the training and validation sets was 93% (95% CI 91-95%) and 89% (95% CI 86-92%), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 87% (95% CI 82-91%) and 88% (95% CI 83-92%) in the training set and 87% (95% CI 76-93%) and 90% (95% CI 72-97%) in the validation set. In subgroup analyses in the training set, the combined use of clinical and imaging features with ML yielded higher sensitivity (90% vs. 83%) and specificity (90% vs. 82%) than the use of imaging features alone. In addition, ML performed better for high-grade gliomas than for low-grade gliomas, and ML that used conventional MRI sequences demonstrated higher specificity for predicting IDH mutation than ML using conventional and advanced MRI sequences.

conclusionsML demonstrated an excellent diagnostic performance in predicting IDH mutation of glioma. Clinical information, MRI sequences, and glioma grade were the main factors influencing diagnostic specificity. KEY POINTS: • Machine learning demonstrated an excellent diagnostic performance for prediction of IDH mutation in glioma (the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 87%, respectively). • Machine learning that used conventional MRI sequences demonstrated higher specificity in predicting IDH mutation than that based on conventional and advanced MRI sequences (89% vs. 85%). • Integration of clinical and imaging features in machine learning yielded a higher sensitivity (90% vs. 83%) and specificity (90% vs. 82%) than that achieved by using imaging features alone.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMutationBiomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, NeoplasmGliomaHumansIsocitrate DehydrogenaseMagnetic Resonance ImagingROC CurveBiomarkers, TumorDNA, NeoplasmIsocitrate DehydrogenaseGliomaIsocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)Machine learningMRI

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.