Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35939301›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Brain Tumor Diagnosis and Classification Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Peiyi Gao, Wei Shan, Yue Guo, Yinyan Wang, Rujing Sun, Jinxiu Cai, Hao Li, Wei Sheng Chan, Pan Liu, Lei Yi and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Peiyi GaoNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Wei ShanNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yue GuoNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yinyan WangNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Rujing SunNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jinxiu CaiNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hao LiNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Wei Sheng ChanChina National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Hanalytics Artificial Intelligence Research Center for Neurological Disorders Beijing, PR China.
Pan LiuChina National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Hanalytics Artificial Intelligence Research Center for Neurological Disorders Beijing, PR China.
Lei YiMedical Imaging Department, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital/the First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University Health Science Center, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Shaosen ZhangNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Weihua LiMedical Imaging Department, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital/the First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University Health Science Center, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Tao JiangNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Kunlun HeTranslational Medicine Laboratory, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zhenzhou WuNational Center for Clinical Medicine of Neurological Diseases, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases · CNCapital Medical University · CNBeijing Tian Tan Hospital · CNShenzhen Second People's Hospital · CNPeople's Liberation Army No. 150 Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Deep learning may be able to use patient magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to aid in brain tumor classification and diagnosis. Objective: To develop and clinically validate a deep learning system for automated identification and classification of 18 types of brain tumors from patient MRI data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was conducted using MRI data collected between 2000 and 2019 from 37 871 patients. A deep learning system for segmentation and classification of 18 types of intracranial tumors based on T1- and T2-weighted images and T2 contrast MRI sequences was developed and tested. The diagnostic accuracy of the system was tested using 1 internal and 3 external independent data sets. The clinical value of the system was assessed by comparing the tumor diagnostic accuracy of neuroradiologists with vs without assistance of the proposed system using a separate internal test data set. Data were analyzed from March 2019 through February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in neuroradiologist clinical diagnostic accuracy in brain MRI scans with vs without the deep learning system were evaluated. Results: A deep learning system was trained among 37 871 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.6 [11.4] years; 18 519 women [48.9%]). It achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-0.99) on 1339 patients from 4 centers' data sets in diagnosis and classification of 18 types of tumors. Higher outcomes were found compared with neuroradiologists for accuracy and sensitivity and similar outcomes for specificity (for 300 patients in the Tiantan Hospital test data set: accuracy, 73.3% [95% CI, 67.7%-77.7%] vs 60.9% [95% CI, 46.8%-75.1%]; sensitivity, 88.9% [95% CI, 85.3%-92.4%] vs 53.4% [95% CI, 41.8%-64.9%]; and specificity, 96.3% [95% CI, 94.2%-98.4%] vs 97.9%; [95% CI, 97.3%-98.5%]). With the assistance of the deep learning system, the mean accuracy of neuroradiologists among 1166 patients increased by 12.0 percentage points, from 63.5% (95% CI, 60.7%-66.2%) without assistance to 75.5% (95% CI, 73.0%-77.9%) with assistance. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that deep learning system-based automated diagnosis may be associated with improved classification and diagnosis of intracranial tumors from MRI data among neuroradiologists.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningAdultBrainFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID35939301
PMCPMC9361083
OpenAlexW4290659600

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.