ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Radiomics-Based Differentiation of Glioblastoma and Metastatic Disease: Impact of Different T1-Contrast-Enhanced Sequences on Radiomics Features and Model Performance.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can 3D T1 Post-Contrast MRI in A Radiomics-Machine Learning Model Distinguish Infective from Neoplastic Ring-Enhancing Brain Lesions? An Exploratory Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quantitative Physiologic MRI Combined with Feature Engineering for Developing Machine Learning-Based Prediction Models to Distinguish Glioblastomas from Single Brain Metastases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeEven though glioblastoma (GB) and brain metastases (BM) can be differentiated using radiomics, it remains unclear if the model performance may vary based on the contrast-enhanced sequence used. Our aim was to evaluate the radiomics-based model performance for differentiation between GB and brain metastases BM using MPRAGE and volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) T1-contrast-enhanced sequence. MATERIALS AND
methodsT1 contrast-enhanced (T1-CE) MPRAGE and VIBE sequences acquired in 108 patients (31 GBs and 77 BM) during the same MRI session were retrospectively evaluated. After standardized image preprocessing and segmentation, radiomics features were extracted from necrotic and enhancing tumor components. Pearson correlation analysis of radiomics features from tumor subcomponents was also performed. A total of 90 machine learning pipelines were evaluated using a 5-fold cross-validation. Performance was measured by mean area under the curve (AUC)-receiver operating characteristic (ROC), log loss, and Brier scores.
resultsA feature-wise comparison showed that the radiomics features between sequences were strongly correlated, with the highest correlation for shape-based features. The mean AUC across the top 10 pipelines ranged between 0.851 and 0.890 with T1-CE MPRAGE and between 0.869 and 0.907 with the T1-CE VIBE sequence. The top-performing models for the MPRAGE sequence commonly used support vector machines, while those for the VIBE sequence used either support vector machines or random forest. Common feature-reduction methods for top-performing models included linear combination filter and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator for both sequences. For the same machine learning feature-reduction pipeline, model performances were comparable (AUC-ROC difference range, -0.078-0.046).
conclusionsRadiomics features derived from T1-CE MPRAGE and VIBE sequences are strongly correlated and may have similar overall classification performance for differentiating GB from BM.
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.