Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38720862›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

Magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction models for differentiating intraspinal schwannomas from meningiomas: classification and regression tree and random forest analysis.

Zhen Xu, Yu-Hong Wang, Ya-Lin Wang, You-Zhen Feng, Jin-Shao Ye, Zhong-Yuan Cheng, Xiang-Ran Cai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Zhen XuMedical Imaging Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4657-5526
Yu-Hong WangDepartment of Radiology, Academy of Orthopedics Guangdong Province, Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8790-5993
Ya-Lin WangMedical Imaging Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
You-Zhen FengMedical Imaging Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9123-6988
Jin-Shao YeSchool of Environment, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1081-0184
Zhong-Yuan Cheng *Medical Imaging Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4810-1129
Xiang-Ran Cai *Medical Imaging Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4010-7577

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Due to the variations in surgical approaches and prognosis between intraspinal schwannomas and meningiomas, it is crucial to accurately differentiate between the two prior to surgery. Currently, there is limited research exploring the implementation of machine learning (ML) methods for distinguishing between these two types of tumors. This study aimed to establish a classification and regression tree (CART) model and a random forest (RF) model for distinguishing schwannomas from meningiomas. Methods: We retrospectively collected 88 schwannomas (52 males and 36 females) and 51 meningiomas (10 males and 41 females) who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations prior to the surgery. Simple clinical data and MRI imaging features, including age, sex, tumor location and size, T1-weighted images (T1WI) and T2-weighted images (T2WI) signal characteristics, degree and pattern of enhancement, dural tail sign, ginkgo leaf sign, and intervertebral foramen widening (IFW), were reviewed. Finally, a CART model and RF model were established based on the aforementioned features to evaluate their effectiveness in differentiating between the two types of tumors. Meanwhile, we also compared the performance of the ML models to the radiologists. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were used to evaluate the models and clinicians' discrimination performance. Results: Our investigation reveals significant variations in ten out of 11 variables in the training group and five out of 11 variables in the test group when comparing schwannomas and meningiomas (P<0.05). Ultimately, the CART model incorporated five variables: enhancement pattern, the presence of IFW, tumor location, maximum diameter, and T2WI signal intensity (SI). The RF model combined all 11 variables. The CART model, RF model, radiologist 1, and radiologist 2 achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.890, 0.956, 0.681, and 0.723 in the training group, and 0.838, 0.922, 0.580, and 0.659 in the test group, respectively. Conclusions: The RF prediction model exhibits more exceptional performance than an experienced radiologist in discriminating intraspinal schwannomas from meningiomas. The RF model seems to be better in discriminating the two tumors than the CART model.

Indexed as

classification and regression tree (CART)Intraspinal schwannomasmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)meningiomasrandom forest (RF)

Identifiers

PMID38720862
PMCPMC11074726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.