ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2020
Predicting common solid renal tumors using machine learning models of classification of radiologist-assessed magnetic resonance characteristics.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in detection of renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- A two-stage deep learning framework for kidney disease detection using modified specular-free imaging and EfficientNetB2.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Deep learning algorithm (YOLOv7) for automated renal mass detection on contrast-enhanced MRI: a 2D and 2.5D evaluation of results.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based identification of contrast-enhancement phase of computed tomography scans.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSolid renal masses (SRM) are difficult to differentiate based on standard MR features. The purpose of this study was to assess MR imaging features of SRM to evaluate performance of ensemble methods of classifying SRM subtypes. MATERIALS AND
methodsMR images of SRM (n = 330) were retrospectively evaluated for standard and multiparametric (mp) features. Models of MR features for predicting malignant and benign lesions as well as subtyping SRM were developed using a training dataset and performance was evaluated in a test data-set using recursive partitioning (RP), gradient booting machine (GBM), and random forest (RF) methods.
resultsIn the test dataset, GBM and RF models demonstrated an accuracy of 86% (95% CI 75% to 93%) for predicting benign versus malignant SRM compared to 83% (95% CI 71% to 91%) for the RP model. RF had the greatest accuracy in predicting SRM subtypes, 81.2% (95% CI 69.5% to 89.9%) compared with GBM 73.4% (95% CI 60.9% to 83.7%) or RP 70.3% (95% CI 57.6% to 81.1%). Marginal homogeneity was reduced by the RF model compared with the RP model (P < 0.001), but not the GBM model (P = 0.135). All models had high sensitivity and specificity for clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCC), but performed less well in differentiating chromophobe RCC, oncocytomas, and fat-poor angiomyolipomas.
conclusionEnsemble methods for prediction of SRM from radiologist-assessed image characteristics have high accuracy for distinguishing benign and malignant lesions. SRM subtype classification is limited by the ability to categorize chromophobe RCCs, oncocytomas, and fat-poor angiomyolipomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32666233What 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.