Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33594116›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Uncertainty quantification in the radiogenomics modeling of EGFR amplification in glioblastoma.

Leland S Hu, Lujia Wang, Andrea Hawkins-Daarud, Jennifer M Eschbacher, Kyle W Singleton, Pamela R Jackson, Kamala Clark-Swanson, Christopher P Sereduk, Sen Peng, Panwen Wang and 15 more

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Artificial Intelligence-Driven Multi-Omics Approaches in Glioblastoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Artificial intelligence-based MRI radiomics and radiogenomics in glioma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

25 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Leland S Hu *Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA. hu.leland@mayo.edu.
Lujia Wang *Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Andrea Hawkins-DaarudMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Precision Neurotherapeutics Innovation Program, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Support Services Building Suite 2-700, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Jennifer M EschbacherDepartment of Pathology, Barrow Neurological Institute-St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, 85013, USA.
Kyle W SingletonMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Precision Neurotherapeutics Innovation Program, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Support Services Building Suite 2-700, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Pamela R JacksonMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Precision Neurotherapeutics Innovation Program, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Support Services Building Suite 2-700, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Kamala Clark-SwansonMathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Precision Neurotherapeutics Innovation Program, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Support Services Building Suite 2-700, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Christopher P SeredukDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Sen PengCancer and Cell Biology Division, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA.
Panwen WangDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA.
Junwen WangDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA.
Leslie C BaxterDepartment of Neuropsychology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Kris A SmithDepartment of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute-St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, 85013, USA.
Gina L MazzaDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA.
Ashley M StokesDepartment of Imaging Research, Barrow Neurological Institute-St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, 85013, USA.
Bernard R BendokDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Richard S ZimmermanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Chandan KrishnaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Alyx B PorterDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Maciej M MrugalaDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Joseph M HoxworthDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Teresa WuDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Nhan L TranDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Kristin R Swanson *Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab, Precision Neurotherapeutics Innovation Program, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Blvd, Support Services Building Suite 2-700, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Jing Li *Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USWinnMed · USSt. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center · USBarrow Neurological Institute · USDecision Systems (United States) · USMayo Clinic Hospital · USTranslational Genomics Research Institute · US

Funding

Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Felicity Enders · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
Quantifying Multiscale Competitive Landscapes of Clonal Diversity in GlioblastomaU01CA220378 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ARIZONA · PI HU, LELAND, SWANSON, KRISTIN R · 2017 to 2021
$4.3M
Multi-site Validation and Application of a Consensus DSC MRI ProtocolR01CA221938 · NCI · ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER · PI BOXERMAN, JERROLD L, HU, LELAND · 2018 to 2020
$738k
MRI-based mapping of regional genomic diversity in GlioblastomaR21NS082609 · NINDS · MAYO CLINIC ARIZONA · PI HU, LELAND · 2013 to 2014
$525k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083NCI NIH HHS R01 CA221938NCI NIH HHS U01 CA220378NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS082609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiogenomics uses machine-learning (ML) to directly connect the morphologic and physiological appearance of tumors on clinical imaging with underlying genomic features. Despite extensive growth in the area of radiogenomics across many cancers, and its potential role in advancing clinical decision making, no published studies have directly addressed uncertainty in these model predictions. We developed a radiogenomics ML model to quantify uncertainty using transductive Gaussian Processes (GP) and a unique dataset of 95 image-localized biopsies with spatially matched MRI from 25 untreated Glioblastoma (GBM) patients. The model generated predictions for regional EGFR amplification status (a common and important target in GBM) to resolve the intratumoral genetic heterogeneity across each individual tumor-a key factor for future personalized therapeutic paradigms. The model used probability distributions for each sample prediction to quantify uncertainty, and used transductive learning to reduce the overall uncertainty. We compared predictive accuracy and uncertainty of the transductive learning GP model against a standard GP model using leave-one-patient-out cross validation. Additionally, we used a separate dataset containing 24 image-localized biopsies from 7 high-grade glioma patients to validate the model. Predictive uncertainty informed the likelihood of achieving an accurate sample prediction. When stratifying predictions based on uncertainty, we observed substantially higher performance in the group cohort (75% accuracy, n = 95) and amongst sample predictions with the lowest uncertainty (83% accuracy, n = 72) compared to predictions with higher uncertainty (48% accuracy, n = 23), due largely to data interpolation (rather than extrapolation). On the separate validation set, our model achieved 78% accuracy amongst the sample predictions with lowest uncertainty. We present a novel approach to quantify radiogenomics uncertainty to enhance model performance and clinical interpretability. This should help integrate more reliable radiogenomics models for improved medical decision-making.

Indexed as

Genes, erbB-1Imaging GenomicsMachine LearningPatient-Specific ModelingGene AmplificationGlioblastomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33594116
PMCPMC7886858
OpenAlexW3133184849

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.