Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34653254›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2022

Improving the noninvasive classification of glioma genetic subtype with deep learning and diffusion-weighted imaging.

Julia Cluceru, Yannet Interian, Joanna J Phillips, Annette M Molinaro, Tracy L Luks, Paula Alcaide-Leon, Marram P Olson, Devika Nair, Marisa LaFontaine, Anny Shai and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Value of artificial intelligence in neuro-oncology.The Lancet. Digital health · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Julia CluceruDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Yannet InterianMS in Analytics Program, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Joanna J PhillipsDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Annette M MolinaroDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Tracy L LuksDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Paula Alcaide-LeonDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Marram P OlsonDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Devika NairDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Marisa LaFontaineDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Anny ShaiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Pranathi ChunduruDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Valentina PedoiaDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Javier E Villanueva-MeyerDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Susan M ChangDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Janine M LupoDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

Tissue CoreP50CA097257 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Susan M Chang · 2002 to 2026
$57.4M
Project 4: Multi-modality Metabolic Imaging for Monitoring Molecular Sub-types of GliomaP01CA118816 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Susan M Chang, Janine Marie Lupo · 2007 to 2026
$44.7M
PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES AND PHARMACOGENOMICST32GM007175 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI AHITUV, NADAV, KROETZ, DEANNA L · 1985 to 2021
$7.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA118816NCI NIH HHS P50 CA097257NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007175
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic classification of diffuse gliomas now requires an assessment of molecular features, often including IDH-mutation and 1p19q-codeletion status. Because genetic testing requires an invasive process, an alternative noninvasive approach is attractive, particularly if resection is not recommended. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of training strategy and incorporation of biologically relevant images on predicting genetic subtypes with deep learning.

methodsOur dataset consisted of 384 patients with newly diagnosed gliomas who underwent preoperative MRI with standard anatomical and diffusion-weighted imaging, and 147 patients from an external cohort with anatomical imaging. Using tissue samples acquired during surgery, each glioma was classified into IDH-wildtype (IDHwt), IDH-mutant/1p19q-noncodeleted (IDHmut-intact), and IDH-mutant/1p19q-codeleted (IDHmut-codel) subgroups. After optimizing training parameters, top performing convolutional neural network (CNN) classifiers were trained, validated, and tested using combinations of anatomical and diffusion MRI with either a 3-class or tiered structure. Generalization to an external cohort was assessed using anatomical imaging models.

resultsThe best model used a 3-class CNN containing diffusion-weighted imaging as an input, achieving 85.7% (95% CI: [77.1, 100]) overall test accuracy and correctly classifying 95.2%, 88.9%, 60.0% of the IDHwt, IDHmut-intact, and IDHmut-codel tumors. In general, 3-class models outperformed tiered approaches by 13.5%-17.5%, and models that included diffusion-weighted imaging were 5%-8.8% more accurate than those that used only anatomical imaging.

conclusionTraining a classifier to predict both IDH-mutation and 1p19q-codeletion status outperformed a tiered structure that first predicted IDH-mutation, then 1p19q-codeletion. Including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a surrogate marker of cellularity, more accurately captured differences between subgroups.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningGliomaDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansIsocitrate DehydrogenaseMagnetic Resonance ImagingMutationIsocitrate DehydrogenaseADCconvolutional neural networkdeep learningdiffusion-weighted imagingglioma subtype

Identifiers

PMID34653254
PMCPMC8972294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.