ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning for grading prediction and survival analysis in high grade glioma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Radiomics model integrating MRI and ECV enhances prediction accuracy for progression in high-grade glioma.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Glioma Grading by Integrating Radiomic Features from Peritumoral Edema in Fused MRI Images and Automated Machine Learning.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Radiotherapy for glioma in the AI era: current applications and future prospects.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We developed and validated a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics model for the classification of high-grade glioma (HGG) and determined the optimal machine learning (ML) approach. This retrospective analysis included 184 patients (59 grade III lesions and 125 grade IV lesions). Radiomics features were extracted from MRI with T1-weighted imaging (T1WI). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) feature selection method and seven classification methods including logistic regression, XGBoost, Decision Tree, Random Forest (RF), Adaboost, Gradient Boosting Decision Tree, and Stacking fusion model were used to differentiate HGG. Performance was compared on AUC, sensitivity, accuracy, precision and specificity. In the non-fusion models, the best performance was achieved by using the XGBoost classifier, and using SMOTE to deal with the data imbalance to improve the performance of all the classifiers. The Stacking fusion model performed the best, with an AUC = 0.95 (sensitivity of 0.84; accuracy of 0.85; F1 score of 0.85). MRI-based quantitative radiomics features have good performance in identifying the classification of HGG. The XGBoost method outperforms the classifiers in the non-fusion model and the Stacking fusion model outperforms the non-fusion model.
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.