ArticleJournal of radiation research2024
Radiomics for predicting MGMT status in cerebral glioblastoma: comparison of different MRI sequences.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glioblastoma: epidemiology, molecular pathogenesis, diagnosis, management, and therapeutic resistance.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- Virtual Biopsy for the Prediction of MGMT Promoter Methylation in Gliomas: A Comprehensive Review of Radiomics and Deep Learning Approaches Applied to MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Explainable, modality-adaptive radiomics for MGMT methylation prediction in high-grade glioma: a decision-curve analysis study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Using radiomics to predict O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and compare the performances of different MRI sequences. Preoperative MRI scans from 215 patients were included in this retrospective study. After image preprocessing and feature extraction, two kinds of machine-learning models were established and compared for their performances. One kind was established using all MRI sequences (T1-weighted image, T2-weighted image, contrast enhancement, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, DWI_b_high, DWI_b_low and apparent diffusion coefficient), and the other kind was based on single MRI sequence as listed above. For the machine-learning model based on all sequences, a total of seven radiomic features were selected with the Maximum Relevance and Minimum Redundancy algorithm. The predictive accuracy was 0.993 and 0.750 in the training and validation sets, respectively, and the area under curves were 1.000 and 0.754 in the two sets, respectively. For the machine-learning model based on single sequence, the numbers of selected features were 8, 10, 10, 13, 9, 7 and 6 for T1-weighted image, T2-weighted image, contrast enhancement, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, DWI_b_high, DWI_b_low and apparent diffusion coefficient, respectively, with predictive accuracies of 0.797-1.000 and 0.583-0.694 in the training and validation sets, respectively, and the area under curves of 0.874-1.000 and 0.538-0.697 in the two sets, respectively. Specifically, T1-weighted image-based model performed best, while contrast enhancement-based model performed worst in the independent validation set. The machine-learning models based on seven different single MRI sequences performed differently in predicting O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase status in glioblastoma, while the machine-learning model based on the combination of all sequences performed best.
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.