ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
A head-to-head comparison of computed tomography- and magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics in assessing pediatric peripheral neuroblastic tumor cell behavior.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiomics-Based Machine Learning for DeterminingTechnology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- Predicting Bone Marrow Metastasis in Neuroblastoma: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach Using Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography Radiomics Features.Technology 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the performance of radiomics from contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing cellular behavior in pediatric peripheral neuroblastic tumors (PNTs). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of 81 PNT patients who underwent venous phase CECT, T1-weighted imaging (T1WI), and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) scans was conducted. The patients were classified into neuroblastoma and ganglioneuroblastoma/ganglioneuroma based on their pathological subtypes. Additionally, they were categorized into favorable histology and unfavorable histology according to the International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification (INPC). Tumor regions of interest were segmented on CECT, axial T1WI, and axial T2WI images, and radiomics models were developed based on the selected radiomics features. Following five-fold cross-validation, the performance of the radiomics models derived from CECT and MRI was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accuracy.
resultsFor discriminating pathological subtypes, the AUC for CECT radiomics models ranged from 0.765 to 0.870, with an accuracy range of 0.728 to 0.815. In contrast, the AUC for MRI radiomics models ranged from 0.549 to 0.748, with an accuracy range of 0.531 to 0.778. Regarding the discrimination of INPC subgroups, the AUC for CECT radiomics models ranged from 0.503 to 0.759, with an accuracy range of 0.432 to 0.741. Meanwhile, the AUC for MRI radiomics models ranged from 0.512 to 0.739, with an accuracy range of 0.605 to 0.815.
conclusionsCECT radiomics outperforms non-contrast MRI radiomics in evaluating pathological subtypes. When assessing INPC subgroups, CECT radiomics demonstrates comparability with non-contrast MRI radiomics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38900321What 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.