ArticleTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2024
Value of magnetic resonance imaging radiomics features in predicting histologic grade of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.
Article in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- An XGBoost Machine Learning Based Model for Predicting Ki-67 Value ≥ 15% in TTechnology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer has the second highest mortality rate of all cancers and occurs mainly in women.
objectiveTo investigate the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomics features and histological grade of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast and to evaluate its diagnostic efficacy.
methodsThe two conventional MRI quantitative indicators, i.e. the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the initial enhancement rate, were collected from 112 patients with breast cancer. The breast cancer lesions were manually segmented in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and ADC images, the differences in radiomics features between Grades I, II and III IDCs were compared and the diagnostic efficacy was evaluated.
resultsThe ADC values (0.77 ± 0.22 vs 0.91 ± 0.22 vs 0.92 ± 0.20, F= 4.204, p< 0.01), as well as the B_sum_variance (188.51 ± 67.803 vs 265.37 ± 77.86 vs 263.74 ± 82.58, F= 6.040, p< 0.01), L_energy (0.03 ± 0.02 vs 0.13 ± 0.11 vs 0.12 ± 0.14, F= 7.118, p< 0.01) and L_sum_average (0.78 ± 0.32 vs 16.34 ± 4.23 vs 015.45 ± 3.74, F= 21.860, p< 0.001) values of patients with Grade III IDC were significantly lower than those of patients with Grades I and II IDC. The B_uniform (0.15 ± 0.12 vs 0.11 ± 0.04 vs 0.12 ± 0.03, F= 3.797, p< 0.01) and L_SRE (0.85 ± 0.07 vs 0.78 ± 0.03 vs 0.79 ± 0.32, F= 3.024, p< 0.01) values of patients with Grade III IDC were significantly higher than those of patients with Grades I and II IDC. All differences were statistically significant (p< 0.05). The ADC radiomics signature model had a higher area-under-the-curve value in identifying different grades of IDC than the ADC value model and the DCE radiomics signature model (0.869 vs 0.711 vs 0.682). The accuracy (0.812 vs 0.647 vs 0.710), specificity (0.731 vs 0.435 vs 0.342), positive predictive value (0.815 vs 0.663 vs 0.669) and negative predictive value (0.753 vs 0.570 vs 0.718) of the ADC radiomics signature model were all significantly better than the ADC value model and the DCE radiomics signature model.
conclusionADC values and breast MRI radiomics signatures are significant in identifying the histological grades of IDC, with the ADC radiomics signatures having greater value.
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.