Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35965975›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2022

Radiomics for pseudoprogression prediction in high grade gliomas: added value of MR contrast agent.

Orkhan Mammadov, Burak Han Akkurt, Manfred Musigmann, Asena Petek Ari, David A Blömer, Dilek N G Kasap, Dylan J H A Henssen, Nabila Gala Nacul, Elisabeth Sartoretti, Thomas Sartoretti and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Orkhan MammadovUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Burak Han AkkurtUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Manfred MusigmannUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Asena Petek AriUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
David A BlömerUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Dilek N G KasapUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Dylan J H A HenssenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, 6500HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Nabila Gala NaculUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Elisabeth SartorettiFaculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas SartorettiFaculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Philipp BackhausDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Christian ThomasInstitute of Neuropathology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Walter StummerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Walter HeindelUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
Manoj MannilUniversity Clinic for Radiology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, DE-48149 Muenster, Germany.
University Hospital Münster · DEUniversity of Zurich · CHRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Our aim is to define the capabilities of radiomics in predicting pseudoprogression from pre-treatment MR images in patients diagnosed with high-grade gliomas using T1 non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced images. Material & methods: In this retrospective IRB-approved study, image segmentation of high-grade gliomas was semi-automatically performed using 3D Slicer. Non-contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images were used prior to surgical therapy or radio-chemotherapy. Imaging data was split into a training sample and an independent test sample at random. We extracted 107 radiomic features by use of PyRadiomics. Feature selection and model construction were performed using Generalized Boosted Regression Models (GBM). Results: Our cohort included 124 patients (female: n = 53), diagnosed with progressive (n = 61) and pseudoprogressive disease (n = 63) of primary high-grade gliomas. Based on non-contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images of the independent test sample, the mean area under the curve (AUC), mean sensitivity, mean specificity and mean accuracy of our model were 0.651 [0.576, 0.761], 0.616 [0.417, 0.833], 0.578 [0.417, 0.750] and 0.597 [0.500, 0.708] to predict the development of pseudoprogression. In comparison, the independent test data of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images yielded significantly higher values of AUC = 0.819 [0.760, 0.872], sensitivity = 0.817 [0.750, 0.833], specificity = 0.723 [0.583, 0.833] and accuracy = 0.770 [0.687, 0.833]. Conclusion: Our findings show that it is possible to predict pseudoprogression of high-grade gliomas with a Radiomics model using contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images with comparatively good discriminatory power. The use of a contrast agent results in a clear added value.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceGliomaPatient outcome assessment

Identifiers

PMID35965975
PMCPMC9364026
OpenAlexW4289525334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.