ArticleBrain tumor research and treatment2020
Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Fractal Dimension and Lacunarity Analyses for Predicting the Meningioma Grade.
Article in Brain tumor research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- IDH mutation prediction in non-enhancing gliomas with relaxed T2-FLAIR mismatch and fractal dimension: a two-center study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Consistency and grade prediction of intracranial meningiomas based on fractal geometry analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Study of prediction model for high-grade meningioma using fractal geometry combined with radiological features.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Preoperative prediction of CNS WHO grade and tumour aggressiveness in intracranial meningioma based on radiomics and structured semantics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Morphology and Fractal-Based Classifications of Neurons and Microglia in Two and Three Dimensions.Advances in neurobiology · 2024Review
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) fractal dimension (FD) and lacunarity features from MRI for predicting the meningioma grade.
methodsThis retrospective study included 123 meningioma patients [90 World Health Organization (WHO) grade I, 33 WHO grade II/III] with preoperative MRI including post-contrast T1-weighted imaging. The 2D and 3D FD and lacunarity parameters from the contrast-enhancing portion of the tumor were calculated. Reproducibility was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using 2D or 3D fractal features was performed to predict the meningioma grade. The diagnostic ability of the 2D and 3D fractal models were compared.
resultsThe reproducibility between observers was excellent, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.97, 0.95, 0.98, and 0.96 for 2D FD, 2D lacunarity, 3D FD, and 3D lacunarity, respectively. WHO grade II/III meningiomas had a higher 2D and 3D FD (
conclusionThe 3D fractal analysis proved superiority in diagnostic performance to 2D fractal analysis in grading meningioma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.