Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38604733›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024

Impact of SUSAN Denoising and ComBat Harmonization on Machine Learning Model Performance for Malignant Brain Neoplasms.

Girish Bathla, Neetu Soni, Ian T Mark, Yanan Liu, Nicholas B Larson, Blake A Kassmeyer, Suyash Mohan, John C Benson, Saima Rathore, Amit K Agarwal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Girish BathlaFrom the Department of Radiology (G.B., N.S.), University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa Bathla.Girish@mayo.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-242X
Neetu SoniFrom the Department of Radiology (G.B., N.S.), University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa.ORCID 0000-0003-2082-1634
Ian T MarkDepartment of Radiology (G.B., I.T.M., J.C.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-4036-2992
Yanan LiuAdvanced Pulmonary Physiomic Imaging Laboratory (Y.L.), University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Nicholas B LarsonDivision of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics (N.B.L., B.A.K.), Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-3468-4215
Blake A KassmeyerDivision of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics (N.B.L., B.A.K.), Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota.
Suyash MohanDepartment of Radiology (S.M.), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
John C BensonDepartment of Radiology (G.B., I.T.M., J.C.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-4038-5422
Saima RathoreAvid Radiopharmaceuticals (S.R.), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Amit K AgarwalDepartment of Radiology (N.S., A.K.A.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.ORCID 0000-0001-9139-8007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeFeature variability in radiomics studies due to technical and magnet strength parameters is well-known and may be addressed through various preprocessing methods. However, very few studies have evaluated the downstream impact of variable preprocessing on model classification performance in a multiclass setting. We sought to evaluate the impact of Smallest Univalue Segment Assimilating Nucleus (SUSAN) denoising and Combining Batches harmonization on model classification performance. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 493 cases (410 internal and 83 external data sets) of glioblastoma, intracranial metastatic disease, and primary CNS lymphoma underwent semiautomated 3D-segmentation post-baseline image processing (BIP) consisting of resampling, realignment, coregistration, skull-stripping, and image normalization. Post-BIP, 2 sets were generated, one with and another without SUSAN denoising. Radiomics features were extracted from both data sets and batch-corrected to produce 4 data sets: (a) BIP, (b) BIP with SUSAN denoising, (c) BIP with Combining Batches, and (d) BIP with both SUSAN denoising and Combining Batches harmonization. Performance was then summarized for models using a combination of 6 feature-selection techniques and 6 machine learning models across 4 mask-sequence combinations with features derived from 1 to 3 (multiparametric) MRI sequences.

resultsMost top-performing models on the external test set used BIP+SUSAN denoising-derived features. Overall, the use of SUSAN denoising and Combining Batches harmonization led to a slight but generally consistent improvement in model performance on the external test set.

conclusionsThe use of image-preprocessing steps such as SUSAN denoising and Combining Batches harmonization may be more useful in a multi-institutional setting to improve model generalizability. Models derived from only T1 contrast-enhanced images showed comparable performance to models derived from multiparametric MRI.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedFemaleGlioblastomaHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedSignal-To-Noise Ratio

Identifiers

PMID38604733
PMCPMC11392381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.