ArticleCancers2023
Deciphering Machine Learning Decisions to Distinguish between Posterior Fossa Tumor Types Using MRI Features: What Do the Data Tell Us?
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional MRI-Based Semantic Features for Differentiation of Pediatric Medulloblastoma and Ependymoma in the Fourth Ventricle: Insights From a Multi-Center Retrospective Study.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- The role of machine learning, deep learning, and MRI findings in the classification of pediatric posterior fossa tumors.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Incidental brain tumor findings in children: prevalence, natural history, management, controversies, challenges, and dilemmas.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024Review
- Pediatric brain tumor classification using deep learning on MR images with age fusion.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) models have become capable of making critical decisions on our behalf. Nevertheless, due to complexity of these models, interpreting their decisions can be challenging, and humans cannot always control them. This paper provides explanations of decisions made by ML models in diagnosing four types of posterior fossa tumors: medulloblastoma, ependymoma, pilocytic astrocytoma, and brainstem glioma. The proposed methodology involves data analysis using kernel density estimations with Gaussian distributions to examine individual MRI features, conducting an analysis on the relationships between these features, and performing a comprehensive analysis of ML model behavior. This approach offers a simple yet informative and reliable means of identifying and validating distinguishable MRI features for the diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors. By presenting a comprehensive analysis of the responses of the four pediatric tumor types to each other and to ML models in a single source, this study aims to bridge the knowledge gap in the existing literature concerning the relationship between ML and medical outcomes. The results highlight that employing a simplistic approach in the absence of very large datasets leads to significantly more pronounced and explainable outcomes, as expected. Additionally, the study also demonstrates that the pre-analysis results consistently align with the outputs of the ML models and the clinical findings reported in the existing literature.
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.