ArticlePloS one2022
Automatic classification of lymphoma lesions in FDG-PET-Differentiation between tumor and non-tumor uptake.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe automatic classification of lymphoma lesions in PET is a main topic of ongoing research. An automatic algorithm would enable the swift evaluation of PET parameters, like texture and heterogeneity markers, concerning their prognostic value for patients outcome in large datasets. Moreover, the determination of the metabolic tumor volume would be facilitated. The aim of our study was the development and evaluation of an automatic algorithm for segmentation and classification of lymphoma lesions in PET.
methodsPre-treatment PET scans from 60 Hodgkin lymphoma patients from the EuroNet-PHL-C1 trial were evaluated. A watershed algorithm was used for segmentation. For standardization of the scan length, an automatic cropping algorithm was developed. All segmented volumes were manually classified into one of 14 categories. The random forest method and a nested cross-validation was used for automatic classification and evaluation.
resultsOverall, 853 volumes were segmented and classified. 203/246 tumor lesions and 554/607 non-tumor volumes were classified correctly by the automatic algorithm, corresponding to a sensitivity, a specificity, a positive and a negative predictive value of 83%, 91%, 79% and 93%. In 44/60 (73%) patients, all tumor lesions were correctly classified. In ten out of the 16 patients with misclassified tumor lesions, only one false-negative tumor lesion occurred. The automatic classification of focal gastrointestinal uptake, brown fat tissue and composed volumes consisting of more than one tissue was challenging.
conclusionOur algorithm, trained on a small number of patients and on PET information only, showed a good performance and is suitable for automatic lymphoma classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.