Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34422095›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2021

MR-Based Radiomics for Differential Diagnosis between Cystic Pituitary Adenoma and Rathke Cleft Cyst.

Yanping Wang, Sixuan Chen, Feng Shi, Xiaoqing Cheng, Qiang Xu, Jianrui Li, Song Luo, Pengbo Jiang, Ying Wei, Changsheng Zhou and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Radiomics of pituitary adenoma using computer vision: a review.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yanping WangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Sixuan ChenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Feng ShiDepartment of Research and Development, Shanghai United Imaging Intelligence Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200232, China.
Xiaoqing ChengDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Qiang XuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Jianrui LiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Song LuoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Pengbo JiangDepartment of Research and Development, Shanghai United Imaging Intelligence Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200232, China.
Ying WeiDepartment of Research and Development, Shanghai United Imaging Intelligence Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200232, China.
Changsheng ZhouDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Lijuan ZhengDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Kaiwei XiaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Guangming LuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.
Zhiqiang ZhangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-7330
Nanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command · CNUnited Imaging Healthcare (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is often tricky to differentiate cystic pituitary adenoma from Rathke cleft cyst with visual inspection because of similar MRI presentations between them. We aimed to design an MR-based radiomics model for improving differential diagnosis between them.

methodsConventional diagnostic MRI data (T1-,T2-, and postcontrast T1-weighted MR images) were obtained from 215 pathologically confirmed patients (105 cases with cystic pituitary adenoma and the other 110 cases with Rathke cleft cyst) and were divided into training (

resultsIn test set, the combined radiomics and semantic model using ANN classifier obtained the best classification performance with an AUC of 0.848 (95% CI: 0.750-0.946), accuracy of 76.7% (95% CI: 64.1-89.4%), sensitivity of 73.9% (95% CI: 56.0-91.9%), and specificity of 80.0% (95% CI: 62.5-97.5%) and performed better than multiparametric model (AUC = 0.792, 95% CI: 0.674-0.910) or semantic model (AUC = 0.823, 95% CI: 0.705-0.941). The two radiologists had an accuracy of 69.8% and 74.4%, respectively, sensitivity of 69.6% and 73.9%, and specificity of 70.0% and 75.0%.

conclusionsThe MR-based radiomics model had technical feasibility and good diagnostic performance in the differential diagnosis between cystic pituitary adenoma and Rathke cleft cyst.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerAdenomaAdultCentral Nervous System CystsComputational BiologyDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPituitary NeoplasmsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID34422095
PMCPMC8373489
OpenAlexW3193139456

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.