Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35953588›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Testing the applicability and performance of Auto ML for potential applications in diagnostic neuroradiology.

Manfred Musigmann, Burak Han Akkurt, Hermann Krähling, Nabila Gala Nacul, Luca Remonda, Thomas Sartoretti, Dylan Henssen, Benjamin Brokinkel, Walter Stummer, Walter Heindel and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Lupus nephritis or not? A simple and clinically friendly machine learning pipeline to help diagnosis of lupus nephritis.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2023
    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

11 authors.

Manfred MusigmannUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Burak Han AkkurtUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Hermann KrählingUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Nabila Gala NaculUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Luca RemondaInstitute of Neuroradiology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Thomas SartorettiFaculty of Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Dylan HenssenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Benjamin BrokinkelDepartment of Neurosurgery, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Walter StummerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Walter HeindelUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Manoj MannilUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. manoj.mannil@ukmuenster.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate the applicability and performance of automated machine learning (AutoML) for potential applications in diagnostic neuroradiology. In the medical sector, there is a rapidly growing demand for machine learning methods, but only a limited number of corresponding experts. The comparatively simple handling of AutoML should enable even non-experts to develop adequate machine learning models with manageable effort. We aim to investigate the feasibility as well as the advantages and disadvantages of developing AutoML models compared to developing conventional machine learning models. We discuss the results in relation to a concrete example of a medical prediction application. In this retrospective IRB-approved study, a cohort of 107 patients who underwent gross total meningioma resection and a second cohort of 31 patients who underwent subtotal resection were included. Image segmentation of the contrast enhancing parts of the tumor was performed semi-automatically using the open-source software platform 3D Slicer. A total of 107 radiomic features were extracted by hand-delineated regions of interest from the pre-treatment MRI images of each patient. Within the AutoML approach, 20 different machine learning algorithms were trained and tested simultaneously. For comparison, a neural network and different conventional machine learning algorithms were trained and tested. With respect to the exemplary medical prediction application used in this study to evaluate the performance of Auto ML, namely the pre-treatment prediction of the achievable resection status of meningioma, AutoML achieved remarkable performance nearly equivalent to that of a feed-forward neural network with a single hidden layer. However, in the clinical case study considered here, logistic regression outperformed the AutoML algorithm. Using independent test data, we observed the following classification results (AutoML/neural network/logistic regression): mean area under the curve = 0.849/0.879/0.900, mean accuracy = 0.821/0.839/0.881, mean kappa = 0.465/0.491/0.644, mean sensitivity = 0.578/0.577/0.692 and mean specificity = 0.891/0.914/0.936. The results obtained with AutoML are therefore very promising. However, the AutoML models in our study did not yet show the corresponding performance of the best models obtained with conventional machine learning methods. While AutoML may facilitate and simplify the task of training and testing machine learning algorithms as applied in the field of neuroradiology and medical imaging, a considerable amount of expert knowledge may still be needed to develop models with the highest possible discriminatory power for diagnostic neuroradiology.

Indexed as

Meningeal NeoplasmsMeningiomaHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35953588
PMCPMC9366823

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.