Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37035216›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Performance comparison of 2D and 3D MRI radiomics features in meningioma grade prediction: A preliminary study.

Chongfeng Duan, Nan Li, Xuejun Liu, Jiufa Cui, Gang Wang, Wenjian Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predictive Performance of Radiomic Features Extracted from Breast MR Imaging in Postoperative Upgrading of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ to Invasive Carcinoma.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Advancements in the application of MRI radiomics in meningioma.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chongfeng DuanDepartment of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Nan LiDepartment of Information Management, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Xuejun LiuDepartment of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Jiufa CuiDepartment of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Gang WangDepartment of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Wenjian XuDepartment of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University · CNQingdao University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the predictive performance of 2D and 3D radiomics features in meningioma grade based on enhanced T1 WI images. Methods: There were 170 high grade meningioma and 170 low grade meningioma were selected randomly. The 2D and 3D features were extracted from 2D and 3D ROI of each meningioma. The Spearman correlation analysis and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression were used to select the valuable features. The 2D and 3D predictive models were constructed by naive Bayes (NB), gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), and support vector machine (SVM). The ROC curve was drawn and AUC was calculated. The 2D and 3D models were compared by Delong test of AUCs and decision curve analysis (DCA) curve. Results: There were 1143 features extracted from each ROI. Six and seven features were selected. The AUC of 2D and 3D model in NB, GBDT, and SVM was 0.773 and 0.771, 0.722 and 0.717, 0.733 and 0.743. There was no significant difference in two AUCs (p=0.960, 0.913, 0.830) between 2D and 3D model. The 2D features had a better performance than 3D features in NB models and the 3D features had a better performance than 2D features in GBDT models. The 2D features and 3D features had an equal performance in SVM models. Conclusions: The 2D and 3D features had a comparable performance in predicting meningioma grade. Considering the issue of time and labor, 2D features could be selected for radiomics study in meningioma. Key points: There was a comparable performance between 2D and 3D features in meningioma grade prediction. The 2D features was a proper selection in meningioma radiomics study because of its time and labor saving.

Indexed as

2D features3D featuresmagnetic resonance imagingmeningiomaradiomics

Identifiers

PMID37035216
PMCPMC10076744
OpenAlexW4360616788

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.