ArticleBMC cancer2024
Convolutional neural network-based magnetic resonance image differentiation of filum terminale ependymomas from schwannomas.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the current status and hot topics in spinal schwannoma imaging research based on bibliometrics.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- A Radiomics-Driven Model to Distinguish Between Clinically Similar Myxopapillary Ependymomas and Lumbosacral Schwannomas.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a multi-modal MRI-based deep learning framework for differentiation of intraspinal tumors (ISMF-Net).EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposePreoperative diagnosis of filum terminale ependymomas (FTEs) versus schwannomas is difficult but essential for surgical planning and prognostic assessment. With the advancement of deep-learning approaches based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), the aim of this study was to determine whether CNN-based interpretation of magnetic resonance (MR) images of these two tumours could be achieved.
methodsContrast-enhanced MRI data from 50 patients with primary FTE and 50 schwannomas in the lumbosacral spinal canal were retrospectively collected and used as training and internal validation datasets. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI was determined by consistency with postoperative histopathological examination. T1-weighted (T1-WI), T2-weighted (T2-WI) and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CE-T1) MR images of the sagittal plane containing the tumour mass were selected for analysis. For each sequence, patient MRI data were randomly allocated to 5 groups that further underwent fivefold cross-validation to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the CNN models. An additional 34 pairs of cases were used as an external test dataset to validate the CNN classifiers.
resultsAfter comparing multiple backbone CNN models, we developed a diagnostic system using Inception-v3. In the external test dataset, the per-examination combined sensitivities were 0.78 (0.71-0.84, 95% CI) based on T1-weighted images, 0.79 (0.72-0.84, 95% CI) for T2-weighted images, 0.88 (0.83-0.92, 95% CI) for CE-T1 images, and 0.88 (0.83-0.92, 95% CI) for all weighted images. The combined specificities were 0.72 based on T1-WI (0.66-0.78, 95% CI), 0.84 (0.78-0.89, 95% CI) based on T2-WI, 0.74 (0.67-0.80, 95% CI) for CE-T1, and 0.81 (0.76-0.86, 95% CI) for all weighted images. After all three MRI modalities were merged, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated, and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93, with an accuracy of 0.87.
conclusionsCNN based MRI analysis has the potential to accurately differentiate ependymomas from schwannomas in the lumbar segment.
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.