Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33357081›Full record

ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment

Quantitative PET Imaging and Clinical Parameters as Predictive Factors for Patients With Cervical Carcinoma: Implications of a Prediction Model Generated Using Multi-Objective Support Vector Machine Learning.

Zhiguo Zhou, Genevieve M Maquilan, Kimberly Thomas, Jason Wachsmann, Jing Wang, Michael R Folkert, Kevin Albuquerque

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
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.

Zhiguo ZhouSchool of Computer Science and Mathematics, University of Central Missouri, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8867-6907
Genevieve M MaquilanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Kimberly ThomasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Jason WachsmannDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Jing WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Michael R FolkertDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Kevin AlbuquerqueDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Funding

Real-time prostate lesion tracking during SBRTR01EB027898 · NIBIB · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI HANNAN, RAQUIBUL, WANG, JING · 2019 to 2022
$1.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB027898
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeQuantitative features from pre-treatment positron emission tomography (PET) have been used to predict treatment outcomes for patients with cervical carcinoma. The purpose of this study is to use quantitative PET imaging features and clinical parameters to construct a multi-objective machine learning predictive model. MATERIALS/

methodsSeventy-five patients with stage IB2-IVA disease treated at our institution from 2009-2012 were analyzed. Models predicting locoregional and distant failure were generated using clinical parameters (age, race, stage, histology, tumor size, nodal status) and imaging features (12 textural, 9 intensity, 8 geometric features, 2 additional imaging features) from pre-treatment PET. Model features were selected based on a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to maximize specificity given a fixed moderately high sensitivity using support vector machine learning methods. Model 1 used clinical parameters only (C), Model 2 used imaging features only (I), and Model 3 used clinical and imaging features (C+I). Sensitivity, specificity, area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), and p-values were compared to assess ability to predict locoregional and distant failure.

resultsC+I had the highest performance for both locoregional failure (AUC 0.84, p < 0.01; specificity: 0.86; sensitivity: 0.79) and distant failure (AUC 0.75, p < 0.01; specificity: 0.75; sensitivity: 0.75).

conclusionsBased on a moderately high fixed sensitivity and optimized for specificity, the model using both clinical parameters and imaging features (C+I) had the best performance in predicting both locoregional failure and distant failure.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlgorithmsClinical Decision-MakingDisease ManagementFemaleHumansMachine LearningMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyPrognosisRadiopharmaceuticalsROC CurveRadiopharmaceuticalscervical carcinomaclinical parametersmulti-objective modelPETradiomics

Identifiers

PMID33357081
PMCPMC7768874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.