Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36330178›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Incorporating multiple magnetic resonance diffusion models to differentiate low- and high-grade adult gliomas: a machine learning approach.

Junqi Xu, Yan Ren, Xueying Zhao, Xiaoqing Wang, Xuchen Yu, Zhenwei Yao, Yan Zhou, Xiaoyuan Feng, Xiaohong Joe Zhou, He Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors.

Junqi Xu *Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yan Ren *Radiology Department, Hua Shan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xueying ZhaoInstitute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoqing WangDepartment of Radiology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Xuchen YuInstitute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhenwei YaoRadiology Department, Hua Shan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yan ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoyuan FengRadiology Department, Hua Shan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaohong Joe ZhouCenter for Magnetic Resonance Research, Departments of Radiology, Neurosurgery, and Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
He WangInstitute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate grading of gliomas is a challenge in imaging diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a machine learning (ML) approach based on multiparametric diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in differentiating low- and high-grade adult gliomas. Methods: A model was developed from an initial cohort containing 74 patients with pathology-confirmed gliomas, who underwent 3 tesla (3T) diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with 21 b values. In all, 112 histogram features were extracted from 16 parameters derived from seven diffusion models [monoexponential, intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI), fractional order calculus (FROC), continuous-time random walk (CTRW), stretched-exponential, and statistical]. Feature selection and model training were performed using five randomly permuted five-fold cross-validations. An internal test set (15 cases of the primary dataset) and an external cohort (n=55) imaged on a different scanner were used to validate the model. The diagnostic performance of the model was compared with that of a single DWI model and DWI radiomics using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Seven significant multiparametric DWI features (two from the stretched-exponential and FROC models, and three from the CTRW model) were selected to construct the model. The multiparametric DWI model achieved the highest AUC (0.84, versus 0.71 for the single DWI model, P<0.05), an accuracy of 0.80 in the internal test, and both AUC and accuracy of 0.76 in the external test. Conclusions: Our multiparametric DWI model differentiated low- (LGG) from high-grade glioma (HGG) with better generalization performance than the established single DWI model. This result suggests that the application of an ML approach with multiple DWI models is feasible for the preoperative grading of gliomas.

Indexed as

glioma gradingmachine learning (ML)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Multiparametric diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)

Identifiers

PMID36330178
PMCPMC9622457

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.