ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Machine Learning Prediction of Pituitary Macroadenoma Consistency: Utilizing Demographic Data and Brain MRI Parameters.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning-based models for preoperative prediction of pituitary adenoma consistency: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Multiplexed sensitivity encoding diffusion-weighted imaging in the assessment of meningiomas: improving the image quality, grading accuracy, and proliferative activity evaluation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Pituitary macroadenoma: less common neuroimaging features in a common lesion.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consistency of pituitary macroadenomas is a key determinant in surgical outcomes, with non-soft consistency linked to more complications and incomplete resections. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model to predict the consistency of pituitary macroadenomas to improve surgical planning and outcomes. A retrospective study of patients with pituitary macroadenomas was conducted. Data included brain magnetic resonance imaging findings (diameter and apparent diffusion coefficient), patient demographics (age and sex), and tumor consistency. Seventy patients were evaluated, 59 with soft consistency and 11 with non-soft consistency. The support vector machine (SVM) was the best model with ROC AUC score of 83.3% [95% CI 65.8, 97.6], AP AUC of 69.8% [95% CI 41.3, 91.1], sensitivity of 73.1% [95% CI 44.4, 100], specificity of 89.8% [95% CI 82, 96.7], F1 score of 0.63 [95% CI 0.36, 0.83], and Matthews correlation coefficient score of 0.57 [95% CI 0.29, 0.79]. These findings indicate a significant improvement over random classification, as confirmed by a permutation test (p < 0.05). Additionally, the model had a 67.4% probability of outperforming the second-best model in cross-validation, as determined through Bayesian analysis, and demonstrated statistical significance (p < 0.05) compared to non-ensemble models. Using explainability heuristics, both 2D and 3D probability maps highlighted areas with a higher probability of non-soft consistency. The attributes most influential in the correct classification by our best model were male sex and age ≤ 42.25 years. Despite some limitations, the SVM model showed promise in predicting tumor consistency, which could aid in surgical planning. To address concerns about generalizability, we have created an open-access repository to promote future external validation studies and collaboration with other research centers, with the goal of enhancing model prediction through transfer learning.
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.