Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33200991›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Deep Learning Methodology for Differentiating Glioma Recurrence From Radiation Necrosis Using Multimodal Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Yang Gao, Xiong Xiao, Bangcheng Han, Guilin Li, Xiaolin Ning, Defeng Wang, Weidong Cai, Ron Kikinis, Shlomo Berkovsky, Antonio Di Ieva and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Deep learning in MRI-guided radiation therapy: A systematic review.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Artificial Intelligence in Brain Tumors.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  11. Machine Learning and Radiomics in Gliomas.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Yang Gao *Beijing Academy of Quantum Information Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6841-9276
Xiong Xiao *Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5137-8538
Bangcheng HanSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1313-756X
Guilin LiDepartment of Neuropathology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8007-6096
Xiaolin NingSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3563-3601
Defeng WangSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9530-4167
Weidong CaiSchool of Computer Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3706-8896
Ron KikinisSurgical Planning Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7227-7058
Shlomo BerkovskyCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2638-4121
Antonio Di IevaComputational NeuroSurgery Lab, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5341-5416
Liwei ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1919-3765
Nan JiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9001-8858
Sidong LiuCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2371-0713
Capital Medical University · CNBeihang University · CNMacquarie University · AUBeijing Academy of Quantum Information Sciences · CNBrigham and Women's Hospital · USThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Training and DisseminationP41EB015902 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KIKINIS, RON, WESTIN, CARL-FREDRIK · 2012 to 2022
$20.9M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015902
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe radiological differential diagnosis between tumor recurrence and radiation-induced necrosis (ie, pseudoprogression) is of paramount importance in the management of glioma patients.

objectiveThis research aims to develop a deep learning methodology for automated differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis based on routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.

methodsIn this retrospective study, 146 patients who underwent radiation therapy after glioma resection and presented with suspected recurrent lesions at the follow-up MRI examination were selected for analysis. Routine MRI scans were acquired from each patient, including T1, T2, and gadolinium-contrast-enhanced T1 sequences. Of those cases, 96 (65.8%) were confirmed as glioma recurrence on postsurgical pathological examination, while 50 (34.2%) were diagnosed as necrosis. A light-weighted deep neural network (DNN) (ie, efficient radionecrosis neural network [ERN-Net]) was proposed to learn radiological features of gliomas and necrosis from MRI scans. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate performance of the model in both image-wise and subject-wise classifications. Preoperative diagnostic performance of the model was also compared to that of the state-of-the-art DNN models and five experienced neurosurgeons.

resultsDNN models based on multimodal MRI outperformed single-modal models. ERN-Net achieved the highest AUC in both image-wise (0.915) and subject-wise (0.958) classification tasks. The evaluated DNN models achieved an average sensitivity of 0.947 (SD 0.033), specificity of 0.817 (SD 0.075), and accuracy of 0.903 (SD 0.026), which were significantly better than the tested neurosurgeons (P=.02 in sensitivity and P<.001 in specificity and accuracy).

conclusionsDeep learning offers a useful computational tool for the differential diagnosis between recurrent gliomas and necrosis. The proposed ERN-Net model, a simple and effective DNN model, achieved excellent performance on routine MRI scans and showed a high clinical applicability.

Indexed as

deep learningmultimodal MRIprogressionpseudoprogressionradiation necrosisrecurrent tumor

Identifiers

PMID33200991
PMCPMC7708085
OpenAlexW3027857290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.