ArticlePloS one2023
Ensemble learning-based radiomics with multi-sequence magnetic resonance imaging for benign and malignant soft tissue tumor differentiation.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time-dependent diffusion MRI of soft tissue tumors: correlations with Ki-67 proliferation status.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Variability Regularized Feature Selection (VaRFS) for optimal identification of robust and discriminable features from medical imaging.Npj imaging · 2026Article
- Review
- Leveraging Ensemble Models and Follow-up Data for Accurate Prediction of mRS Scores from Radiomic Features of DSC-PWI Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Radiomic analysis of patient and interorgan heterogeneity in response to immunotherapies and BRAF-targeted therapy in metastatic melanoma.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- Distinguishing benign and malignant myxoid soft tissue tumors: Performance of radiomics vs. radiologists.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advancing ischemic stroke diagnosis and clinical outcome prediction using improved ensemble techniques in DSC-PWI radiomics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many previous studies focused on differentiating between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors using radiomics model based on various magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences, but it is still unclear how to set up the input radiomic features from multiple MRI sequences. Here, we evaluated two types of radiomics models generated using different feature incorporation strategies. In order to differentiate between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors (STTs), we compared the diagnostic performance of an ensemble of random forest (R) models with single-sequence MRI inputs to R models with pooled multi-sequence MRI inputs. One-hundred twenty-five STT patients with preoperative MRI were retrospectively included and consisted of training (n = 100) and test (n = 25) sets. MRI included T1-weighted (T1-WI), T2-weighted (T2-WI), contrast-enhanced (CE)-T1-WI, diffusion-weighted images (DWIs, b = 800 sec/mm2) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. After tumor segmentation on each sequence, 100 original radiomic features were extracted from each sequence image and divided into three-feature sets: T features from T1- and T2-WI, CE features from CE-T1-WI, and D features from DWI and ADC maps. Four radiomics models were built using Lasso and R with four combinations of three-feature sets as inputs: T features (R-T), T+CE features (R-C), T+D features (R-D), and T+CE+D features (R-A) (Type-1 model). An ensemble model was built by soft voting of five, single-sequence-based R models (Type-2 model). AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each model was calculated with five-fold cross validation. In Type-1 model, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.752, 71.8%, 61.1%, and 67.2% in R-T; 0.756, 76.1%, 70.4%, and 73.6% in R-C; 0.750, 77.5%, 63.0%, and 71.2% in R-D; and 0.749, 74.6%, 61.1%, and 68.8% R-A models, respectively. AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Type-2 model were 0.774, 76.1%, 68.5%, and 72.8%. In conclusion, an ensemble method is beneficial to incorporate features from multi-sequence MRI and showed diagnostic robustness for differentiating malignant STTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.