ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Multiparametric-MRI habitat radiomics analysis for discriminating pathological types of brain metastases.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early identification of the primary tumor types in brain metastases (BMs) is crucial for developing effective treatment strategies. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-based habitat radiomics analysis in differentiating the pathological types of BMs. Materials and methods: Pre-treatment MR images from 328 BMs patients at a single center were retrospectively collected and randomly divided into a training set (229 cases) and a test set (99 cases). Tumor regions were manually segmented on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images (CE-T1WI), and the K-means clustering algorithm was employed to classify the tumor into four distinct sub-regions. Radiomics features were extracted separately from each sub-region to construct the habitat model. The resulting habitat model was compared alongside a traditional whole-tumor radiomics model, a clinical model, and a combined model (integrating habitat and clinical variables). Model performance was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), as well as accuracy. Results: The combined model achieved the highest overall performance (training AUC: 0.992, accuracy: 0.952; test AUC: 0.939, accuracy: 0.845), outperforming the habitat model (training AUC: 0.965, accuracy: 0.876; test AUC: 0.888, accuracy: 0.835), traditional radiomics model (training AUC: 0.984, accuracy: 0.866; test AUC: 0.884, accuracy: 0.754), and clinical model (training AUC: 0.788, accuracy: 0.731; test AUC: 0.716, accuracy: 0.653). However, class-specific evaluation revealed substantial performance variation, with F1-scores of 0.874 for lung cancer BMs, but only 0.333 and 0.200 for breast and gastrointestinal cancer BMs, respectively. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that while habitat radiomics shows potential for classifying BMs, its current performance is constrained by class imbalance and scanner heterogeneity. Consequently, our primary contribution lies in providing a critical baseline and a clear direction, prioritizing data-centric solutions as the essential next step for the field.
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.