ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Imaging prediction of
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of Machine Learning in Diagnosing KRAS (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma) Mutations in Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo predict KRAS mutation in rectal cancer (RC) through computer vision of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) by using metric learning (ML).
methodsThis study included 160 patients with RC who had undergone preoperative PET/CT. KRAS mutation was identified through polymerase chain reaction analysis. This model combined ML with the deep-learning framework to analyze PET data with or without CT images. The Batch Balance Wrapper framework and K-fold cross-validation were employed during the learning process. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the model's predictive performance.
resultsGenetic alterations in KRAS were identified in 82 (51%) tumors. Both PET and CT images were used, and the proposed model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.836 for its ability to predict a mutation status. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 75.3%, 79.3%, and 77.5%, respectively. When PET images alone were used, the area under the curve was 0.817, whereas the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 73.2%, 79.6%, and 76.2%, respectively.
conclusionsThe ML model presented herein revealed that baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT images could provide supplemental information to determine KRAS mutation in RC. Additional studies are required to maximize the predictive accuracy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The results of the ML model presented herein indicate that baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT images could provide supplemental information for determining
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.