ArticleScientific reports2025
Phenotype augmentation using generative AI for isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation prediction in glioma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of feature augmentation, which uses generated images with specific imaging features, on the performance of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation prediction models in gliomas. A total of 598 patients were included from our institution (310 training, 152 internal test) and the Cancer Genome Atlas (136 external test). Score-based diffusion models were used to generate T2-weighted, FLAIR, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted image triplets. Three neuroradiologists independently assessed visual Turing tests and various morphological features. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed using real images, random augmented data, and feature-augmented datasets. While random augmentation yielded models with AUCs comparable to real image-based models, it led to reduced specificity, particularly in the external test set (specificity: 83.2% vs. 73.0%, P = .013). In contrast, feature-augmented models maintained stable diagnostic performance; however, when more than 70% of training images included synthetic T2-FLAIR mismatch signs, AUC decreased in the external test set (AUC: 0.905-0.906 for ≤ 70%; 0.902-0.876 for ≥ 80%). These findings highlight the value of phenotype-specific augmentation for IDH prediction, while emphasizing the need to optimize augmentation proportion to avoid performance degradation.
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.