Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36263203›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Classifying primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma using deep learning and radiomics based machine learning approach - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amrita Guha, Jayant S Goda, Archya Dasgupta, Abhishek Mahajan, Soutik Halder, Jeetendra Gawde, Sanjay Talole

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Amrita GuhaDepartment of Radio Diagnosis, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhaba National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Jayant S GodaDepartment of Radio Diagnosis, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhaba National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Archya DasguptaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhaba National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Abhishek MahajanDepartment of Radio Diagnosis, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhaba National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Soutik HalderDepartment of Biostatistics, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhaba National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Jeetendra GawdeDepartment of Biostatistics, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhaba National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Sanjay TaloleDepartment of Biostatistics, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhaba National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) and primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) are common in elderly yet difficult to differentiate on MRI. Their management and prognosis are quite different. Recent surge of interest in predictive analytics, using machine learning (ML) from radiomic features and deep learning (DL) for diagnosing, predicting response and prognosticating disease has evinced interest among radiologists and clinicians. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the deep learning & ML algorithms in classifying PCNSL from GBM. Methods: The authors performed a systematic review of the literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane central trials register for the search strategy in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to select and evaluate studies that included themes of ML, DL, AI, GBM, PCNSL. All studies reporting on ML algorithms or DL that for differentiating PCNSL from GBM on MR imaging were included. These studies were further narrowed down to focus on works published between 2018 and 2021. Two researchers independently conducted the literature screening, database extraction and risk bias assessment. The extracted data was synthesised and analysed by forest plots. Outcomes assessed were test characteristics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and balanced accuracy. Results: Ten articles meeting the eligibility criteria were identified addressing use of ML and DL in training and validation classifiers to distinguish PCNSL from GBM on MR imaging. The total sample size was 1311 in the included studies. ML approach was used in 6 studies while DL in 4 studies. The lowest reported sensitivity was 80%, while the highest reported sensitivity was 99% in studies in which ML and DL was directly compared with the gold standard histopathology. The lowest reported specificity was 87% while the highest reported specificity was 100%. The highest reported balanced accuracy was 100% and the lowest was 84%. Conclusions: Extensive search of the database revealed a limited number of studies that have applied ML or DL to differentiate PCNSL from GBM. Of the currently published studies, Both DL & ML algorithms have demonstrated encouraging results and certainly have the potential to aid neurooncologists in taking preoperative decisions in the future leading to not only reduction in morbidities but also be cost effective.

Indexed as

deep learningglioblastomamachine learningmagnetic resonance imagingmetaanalysispredictive analyticsprimary central nervous system (CNS) lymphomasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36263203
PMCPMC9574102

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.