Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35396665›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Development and evaluation of machine learning models based on X-ray radiomics for the classification and differentiation of malignant and benign bone tumors.

Claudio E von Schacky, Nikolas J Wilhelm, Valerie S Schäfer, Yannik Leonhardt, Matthias Jung, Pia M Jungmann, Maximilian F Russe, Sarah C Foreman, Felix G Gassert, Florian T Gassert and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A CT-based radiomics nomogram for predicting histologic grade and outcome in chondrosarcoma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

18 authors.

Claudio E von SchackyDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. c.schacky@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1401-0934
Nikolas J WilhelmDepartment for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Valerie S SchäferDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Yannik LeonhardtDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Matthias JungDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany.
Pia M JungmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany.
Maximilian F RusseDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany.
Sarah C ForemanDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Felix G GassertDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Florian T GassertDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Benedikt J SchwaigerDepartment of Neuroradiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Carolin MoglerInstitute of Pathology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Carolin KnebelDepartment for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Ruediger von Eisenhart-RotheDepartment for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Marcus R MakowskiDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Klaus WoertlerDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Rainer BurgkartDepartment for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Alexandra S GersingDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop and validate machine learning models to distinguish between benign and malignant bone lesions and compare the performance to radiologists.

methodsIn 880 patients (age 33.1 ± 19.4 years, 395 women) diagnosed with malignant (n = 213, 24.2%) or benign (n = 667, 75.8%) primary bone tumors, preoperative radiographs were obtained, and the diagnosis was established using histopathology. Data was split 70%/15%/15% for training, validation, and internal testing. Additionally, 96 patients from another institution were obtained for external testing. Machine learning models were developed and validated using radiomic features and demographic information. The performance of each model was evaluated on the test sets for accuracy, area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristics, sensitivity, and specificity. For comparison, the external test set was evaluated by two radiology residents and two radiologists who specialized in musculoskeletal tumor imaging.

resultsThe best machine learning model was based on an artificial neural network (ANN) combining both radiomic and demographic information achieving 80% and 75% accuracy at 75% and 90% sensitivity with 0.79 and 0.90 AUC on the internal and external test set, respectively. In comparison, the radiology residents achieved 71% and 65% accuracy at 61% and 35% sensitivity while the radiologists specialized in musculoskeletal tumor imaging achieved an 84% and 83% accuracy at 90% and 81% sensitivity, respectively.

conclusionsAn ANN combining radiomic features and demographic information showed the best performance in distinguishing between benign and malignant bone lesions. The model showed lower accuracy compared to specialized radiologists, while accuracy was higher or similar compared to residents. KEY POINTS: • The developed machine learning model could differentiate benign from malignant bone tumors using radiography with an AUC of 0.90 on the external test set. • Machine learning models that used radiomic features or demographic information alone performed worse than those that used both radiomic features and demographic information as input, highlighting the importance of building comprehensive machine learning models. • An artificial neural network that combined both radiomic and demographic information achieved the best performance and its performance was compared to radiology readers on an external test set.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsMachine LearningAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRadiographyRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedX-RaysYoung AdultBone neoplasmsDiagnostic imagingMachine learningMusculoskeletal systemRadiography

Identifiers

PMID35396665
PMCPMC9381439

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.