Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35111644›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Developing and validating a deep learning and radiomic model for glioma grading using multiplanar reconstructed magnetic resonance contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging: a robust, multi-institutional study.

Jialin Ding, Rubin Zhao, Qingtao Qiu, Jinhu Chen, Jinghao Duan, Xiujuan Cao, Yong Yin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

7 authors.

Jialin DingSchool of Physics and Electronics, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China.
Rubin ZhaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Technology, Linyi People's Hospital, Linyi, China.
Qingtao QiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Jinhu ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Jinghao DuanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Xiujuan CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Yong YinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough surgical pathology or biopsy are considered the gold standard for glioma grading, these procedures have limitations. This study set out to evaluate and validate the predictive performance of a deep learning radiomics model based on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted multiplanar reconstruction images for grading gliomas.

methodsPatients from three institutions who diagnosed with gliomas by surgical specimen and multiplanar reconstructed (MPR) images were enrolled in this study. The training cohort included 101 patients from institution 1, including 43 high-grade glioma (HGG) patients and 58 low-grade glioma (LGG) patients, while the test cohorts consisted of 50 patients from institutions 2 and 3 (25 HGG patients, 25 LGG patients). We then extracted radiomics features and deep learning features using six pretrained models from the MPR images. The Spearman correlation test and the recursive elimination feature selection method were used to reduce the redundancy and select most predictive features. Subsequently, three classifiers were used to construct classification models. The performance of the grading models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, and negative predictive value. Finally, the prediction performances of the test cohort were compared to determine the optimal classification model.

resultsFor the training cohort, 62% (13 out of 21) of the classification models constructed with MPR images from multiple planes outperformed those constructed with single-plane MPR images, and 61% (11 out of 18) of classification models constructed with both radiomics features and deep learning features had higher area under the curve (AUC) values than those constructed with only radiomics or deep learning features. The optimal model was a random forest model that combined radiomic features and VGG16 deep learning features derived from MPR images, which achieved AUC of 0.847 in the training cohort and 0.898 in the test cohort. In the test cohort, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the optimal model were 0.840, 0.760, and 0.800, respectively.

conclusionsMultiplanar CE-T1W MPR imaging features are more effective than features from single planes when differentiating HGG and LGG. The combination of deep learning features and radiomics features can effectively grade glioma and assist clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

deep learninggliomasMultiplanar reconstruction (MPR)radiomics

Identifiers

PMID35111644
PMCPMC8739133

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.